Please undelete my question? I am befuddled why users voted to close it? As you can see from the comments, many people understand it perfectly. I prefer keeping my thoughts under the Executive Summary for completeness, like on possible causes of action and the Consumer Protection Act, S.O. 2002.

When a Manufacturer grants a "lifetime warranty against defects" but Manufacturer's warranty (exchange and refund) process can take too long (e.g. months), do Consumers have other quicker legal remedies (e.g. within 5 business days)? Particularly when the purchased good is essential to Consumer?

Manufacturer's lifetime warranty appears both a misrepresentation and a contractual Condition (not a warranty). Will Consumer succeed in claiming contractual damages for both (negligent? innocent?) misrepresentation, and/or breach of a Condition?

I ask this for Ontario, Canada. Consumer Protection Act, S.O. 2002 fails to assist Consumer, because it "does not provide a general right to return or exchange goods."

To mitigate loss, and out of necessity, Consumer has just purchased a similar product from another manufacturer.

  • 1
    The question has now been undeleted, and is not currently closed. However it has several downvotes, with a score of -3 as I write. The system automatically deletes questions with a negative score and no upvoted answers after a period of time. Commented Jan 26, 2023 at 20:26

2 Answers 2


I would vote to reopen if the question were rephrased to:

When a manufacturer grants a "lifetime warranty against defects" but its warranty process (exchange or refund) can take months, do consumers have other quicker legal remedies, particularly when the good is very important to the consumer?

I'm interested in Ontario law. I've looked at the Consumer Protection Act and it appears to not provide a general right to return or exchange goods. I'm wondering whether a contract claim or negligent misrepresentation claim might be available, although any legal remedy available in Ontario would be a helpful answer.


  • this avoids the term "necessity good" which is an economic, not legal term
  • it avoids the arguable and unnecessary assertion that the consumer literally "cannot live" without the item - this has generated debate in the comments and I don't see how it adds anything; if the degree of importance to the consumer is legally relevant, it will come up in an answer
  • if the 5-day goal is important, it can be inserted into the above question using parentheses "(e.g. within five days)"
  • none of the rest appears to add anything to the question
  • including specific wording of a specific contract that you might have rights to in the real world steps too close to a request for legal advice; my suggested phrasing would allow answers to provide general legal information without tailoring it to the specific wording of any contract you are party to in the real world

Note: this only explains my vote. Others might have closed for other reasons, or would be willing to open with less drastic edits.

  • Thanks again. Please see my edited post. I have incorporated your advice, but I worded differently for obvious reasons. Writing Consumer Protection Act is ambiguous, because Canada has multiple consumer protection acts. And I kept the para. on mitigation of loss, and buying a substitute, which are legally relevant.
    – user49089
    Commented Nov 4, 2022 at 6:53

Undeletion is unwarranted because of how the stack works.

enter image description here

The post was deleted by the bot. The bot deletes unanswered questions that have a score below 0 after a certain time. Your question was resurrected once already in November. No answer came around in 3 months, its score is negative, so it was auto-purged, as you can see in the page timeline.

page history

You must log in to answer this question.