I have recently purchased a slightly used vehicle (2015 CHRYSER 300 S AWD) from Saskatoon Motor Products (SMP). SMP provided me with a vehicle history report through carproof, which had shown a clean history record with no previous damage. Two weeks ago, I noticed some paint peeling off the rear bumper panel. Upon inspection at a third party body shop as well as inspected at SMP, my rear panelling and plastics did not match its original advertised production specifications when I purchased the vehicle. After taking a day off work to deal with the situation at hand, I spent hours and hours arguing back and forth with their General Manager Gord Mansfield. Gord, along with SMP refused to acknowledge that they had sold me a vehicle with pre-existing damages that were not disclosed at the time of purchase. I was told, it was my word against a very large reputable company, whose legal council was a lot larger than my own. I have purchased several vehicles in the past few years from various dealerships across Saskatchewan and Alberta. This is by far the worst customer service experience that an individual could have while purchasing a vehicle. Numerous times while discussing the facts, I was told that I was just trying to extort SMP and that they had covered all the due diligence that is required when selling a used or new vehicle. While exiting the building I was given the response “good luck” by the general manager. Where has professionalism gone? Listed in the Act respecting Consumer Protection and Business Practices, to repeal certain Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts Chapter C-30.2 – Saskatoon Motor Products failed to obey the following consumer protection practices. Page 4- The following are unfair practices provided by SMP: (c) representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, model, origin or method of manufacture if they are not; (d) representing that goods are new or unused if they are not or if they have deteriorated or been altered, reconditioned or reclaimed; (o) using exaggeration, innuendo or ambiguity in representing a material fact, or failing to disclose a material fact, if the representation or failure is deceptive or misleading; Page 6- C-30.2 – Unfair practices prohibited: 8(1) No supplier shall commit an unfair practice. (2) No employee, agent, salesperson or representative of the supplier shall commit an unfair practice. (3) A supplier and the supplier’s employee, agent, salesperson or representative are liable for an unfair practice of the employee, agent, salesperson or representative. (4) In determining whether or not a person has committed an unfair practice, the general impression given by the alleged unfair practice may be considered. (5) In determining whether or not a person has committed an unfair practice, the reasonableness of the actions of that person in those circumstances is to be considered. Circumstances surrounding unfair practice: 9(1) An unfair practice may occur before, during or after a transaction involving goods or services or whether or not a transaction involving goods or services takes place. (2) An unfair practice may consist of a single act or omission. Interpretation of Part: 10(1) In this Part and in section 102: (a) “acceptable quality” means the characteristics and the quality of a consumer product that consumers can reasonably expect the product to have, having regard to all the relevant circumstances of the sale of the product, including: (i) the description of the product; (ii) its purchase price; and (iii) the express warranties of the retail seller or manufacturer of the product; and includes merchantable quality within the meaning of The Sale of Goods Act; Second-hand dealers 14(1) A second-hand dealer is entitled to rely on a provision in a contract for the sale of a second-hand consumer product that excludes or modifies any or all of the statutory warranties mentioned in clauses 19(d), (e) and (g) if the second-hand dealer proves that, before he or she entered into the contract, the provision was: (a)  brought to the notice of the consumer; and (b)  made clear to the consumer respecting its effect. Page 13 - C-30.2 - Onus of proof 22(1) There is a presumption of breach of warranties by a manufacturer if: (a) a consumer, a person mentioned in subsection 12(1) who derives his or her property or interest in a consumer product from or through a consumer or a person mentioned in section 35 brings an action against a manufacturer for breach of one or more statutory warranties set out in clauses 19(d) and (e); (b) the consumer or person mentioned in clause (a) proves the poor quality, malfunctioning or breakdown of the consumer product but cannot prove the exact cause of the poor quality, malfunctioning or breakdown; and (c) the facts of the case make it reasonable to draw an inference of a breach by the manufacturer of those statutory warranties. Page 19 - C-30.2 - Effect of breach of standards 39(1) In any action arising pursuant to this Part, proof that a consumer product does not comply with mandatory health or safety standards set pursuant to an Act or an Act of the Parliament of Canada or with quality standards set by regulation is evidence that the consumer product is not of acceptable quality or fit for the purpose for which it was bought. (2) Proof that a consumer product complies with the standards mentioned in subsection (1) is not evidence that the consumer product is of acceptable quality or fit for the purpose for which it was bought. (3) Subsection (1) does not apply if non-compliance with the mandatory health or safety standards described in that subsection is not in any way related to or otherwise connected with the quality or fitness of the consumer product. If purchasing a vehicle in Saskatoon, I highly recommend visiting any other dealership besides Saskatoon Motor Products.