Tasco Distributors Consumer deception sold stoves under pretence of commercial capabilities! Mississauga Ontario

We, Loondocks Inc, purchased two Viking Induction Ranges with Commercial Warranties.

These ranges were sold under the pretense of commercial capabilities, then when they failed during intended use, Tasco played the blame game and refused to take responsibility for the product they had sold. Very scary situation to be abandoned by a distributer after the fact on a $18,000 purchase. A restaurant without funcional stoves is like an airplane without wings. Before the sale they told me anything I wanted to hear. After they got their money, everything was arbitrary and they refuse to cooperate.

During the period of sale and shortly thereafter there were a group of companies involved in this transaction including:

• Tasco Distributors Inc.

• We reached out to Tasco Distributers to assist in sourcing induction stoves for our sustainable restaurant. The technology is safer and more efficient.
• We were interested in a Viking Professional Series Induction stoves, sold by Amiel Distributions in Canada. Selling documentation (attached) contains the words “commercial” and “professional” several times.
• From the outset Tasco Salespeople and others involved understood that these stoves were to be used in a new restaurant located in Port Carling, Ontario. No concern was expressed.
• Before the sale could be finalized, Chris Elliott from Tasco indicated he was having problems securing the manufacturer’s warranty. As we were preparing to source another product, Chris contacted me saying not to, and that he had secured a “worry-free” extended commercial warranty, but this was at a premium of $1630.00. This was hailed as a solution to all concerns, and assured me the coverage would help me if the stoves failed during operations and my business was stranded without the means to deliver our product.  We purchased the stoves solely based on this assurance from Tasco, the warranty documentation provided by Comerco, and the “commercial” claims by Amiel Distributions about the ranges they were selling us.
• The stoves faulted in Mid June 2012, right as our restaurant heads into the busy season in cottage country. I contacted Tasco and a service call was placed. They referred Comerco to execute the warranty.
• Before a service technician contacted me, four more of the stove elements failed, causing the units to be completely unusable. Portable camping burners were purchased to keep the restaurant from failing. To be without proper stoves in peak season causes catastrophic challenges to operations. We incurred additional labour expenses to meet our production needs with temporary stoves.
• After following up again due to significant delay, I was contacted by “Chris” from Total Appliance Service (as contracted by Comerco). Chris was rude and seemed upset that I had complained about the delay.
• The service experience was horrible and the stoves were never repaired while in my possession.
• Important to note: No service technician was ever on site at the restaurant to diagnose the problem. A further indicator of unacceptable service and warranty execution.
• There are countless examples of restaurants using induction in restaurants across the country. This technology has proven commercial capabilities, and Viking is a commercial equipment producer as well.
• It then became clear the warranty, nor the companies who sold me the product, are going to help my business recover from this failure. During subsequent conversations we requested that Tasco remove the stoves and refund our money. This request was refused.
• We incurred additional costs during this process, including the removal and delivery of the stoves to Tasco Warehouses in Mississauga, and the labour to install a replacement range.
• After several conversations the only option provided by Tasco was for us to deliver the ranges back to them, and they would repair them and sell them on a consignment basis. We delivered the ranges in December of 2012.
• Tasco could not successfully repair the ranges until May 2013, the timing being a further indicator of the difficulty and time delay for the repair.

The following are our assertions:

• Collectively, the group clearly indicated, with no doubt, that the product was suitable for the purpose intended.
• We relied on that representation in making the purchase, and outfitting the restaurant for their use.
• Comerco provided a commercial warranty in support of its purpose.
• We purchased the stoves solely based on the assurance from Tasco, the commercial warranty d provided by Comerco, and the “commercial” claims by Amiel Distributions regarding the ranges in question.
• Stoves failed to perform as represented.
• The commercial warranty failed to provide any reasonable remedy for failure of the product to perform or provide any warning to that effect.
• By providing a warranty you effectively stated that the ranges would perform in a commercial setting and adequate protection would be provided by the warranty.
• A warranty is designed to provide protection in cases where a failure occurs. It does not prevent a failure from occurring. If there was knowledge that the ranges would not perform, a warranty would be an inadequate solution especially in a restaurant setting.
• No service information and response time was provided to us at the time of sale.
• The repair company failed to respond in a timely manner declaring parts availability and/ or travel time as the issues. We believe the latter (travel time) was the issue.
• These circumstances should have been addressed by Comerco at the time of sale to ensure that the expectations from the warranty could be met. It is clear you had no reasonable assumption of ability to execute the warranty within a remotely acceptable timeframe.
• We have tried to resolve this fairly with all parties involved but have received delayed response and inadequate service, consistent throughout this entire process.

• In summary, the commercial warranty provided a representation of performance and then failed to provide any reasonable remedy for failure. We incurred significant losses as a result.