Small Claims Court says that Bell can’t play shell game with price

“Customer takes Bell to court and wins, as judge agrees telecom giant can’t promise a price, then change it”

“In a judgment issued last month in a Toronto small claims court, Deputy Judge William C. De Lucia said that Bell’s attempt to impose new terms after a verbal contract guaranteeing a monthly price for 24 months had been struck was `high-handed, arbitrary and unacceptable’.”

I’m delighted by this.  It has been ages since I had a small claims case, but I do recall that in Toronto in the 1990s the judges were willing to give large corporations elbow room that smaller litigants didn’t.  I recall one client losing a case on a financial contract because the contract itself was “entirely in his favour” (i.e. the terms where one-sided in his favour).  Neither I nor any other lawyer I talked to could recall, say, Bell or Ford or RBC losing a case because their contract covered all the angles in their favour.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Visit Us On TwitterVisit Us On FacebookVisit Us On Linkedin