29-07-2025
Saggy mattress at centre of B.C. dispute over denied warranty claim
A B.C. man who thought a 10-year-manufacturer's warranty entitled him to a refund when his mattress started to sag after less than a year won't get his money back, according to a recent decision from the Civil Resolution Tribunal.
The ruling on the dispute was posted online Monday, offering a lesson to consumers in the importance of reading the fine print.
Asghar Mohammad Chaudhry paid around $1,000 for the queen-sized Sealy mattress from Leon's Furniture Limited in 2023, and told the tribunal it started sagging within the first year of use.
'Sealy denied his warranty claim, saying he failed to meet certain conditions in how he used the mattress,' tribunal member Micah Carmody wrote in his decision.
The customer was informed about the denial by a worker from Leon's Furniture Limited, who explained the reasons given by the manufacturer.
'First, his bed frame did not have a centre support, which Sealy said can cause mattress sagging issues. Second, his box spring was not a Sealy mattress box spring,' according to the decision.
A copy of the warranty, submitted as evidence, spelled out how the mattress had to be used with one of these two types of bases for it to be covered, the decision noted.
Chadhury filed a claim against the furniture store, arguing it was 'obligated, but failed' to provide detailed information about the warranty.
'In essence Mr. Chaudhry argues that Leon negligently misrepresented the mattress's warranty by failing to provide the full terms and conditions or at least explain its limitations at the time of purchase,' Carmody wrote.
The store, in its response, told the tribunal it was the customer's responsibility to familiarize himself with the details of the warranty and said a warranty card was delivered to Chaudhry with the mattress.
'The issue before me is what was required of Leon as a mattress retailer,' Carmody explained, ultimately siding with the furniture store on the matter.
'I agree with Leon that it would be unreasonable to suggest that a salesperson should be required to take each customer through all the details of the manufacturer's warranty for each product the customer purchases,' the tribunal member wrote.
The claim was therefore dismissed.
