Vendor of truck could not rely on the “as is” and “no warranty” provisions of the sale contract. The Divisional Court refused to overturn a Small Claims Court decision that looked at the interactions of the parties before the contract was signed, and concluded that the words “as-is” and “no warranty” did not conform to the intentions of the parties. The appellate court concluded that there was no palpable and overriding error which would justify the court’s intervention. More specifically, the Divisional Court highlighted that:
“The ambiguity in the contractual arrangements arose from the “as is” and the “no warranty” provisions in the Used Vehicle Bill of Sale when viewed in combination with the contemporaneous direct promises made by …(the sellers)…, intended to induce the sale of the truck. Moreover, the Used Vehicle Bill of Sale was only one of the contractual documents in this transaction.
Given the ambiguity on the issue of warranties of fitness when the contract was formed, it was appropriate for the trial judge to consider the subsequent conduct of the parties concerning the ongoing mechanical problems with the vehicle. The appellants, to their credit, did not take the position they had no responsibility for the mechanical problems with the vehicle, rather they assumed some of the repair costs. The trial judge stated (at para 24) “… I find that the assumption of responsibility for the repairs corroborates …(the seller’s)… verbal representations about the reasonable fitness of the vehicle as a contractual obligation.”
Guru Eak Transport Ltd. v. Eagle Truck Sales Inc. et al., 2022 ONSC 702
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2022/2022onsc702/2022onsc702.html