Tim Hortons says there’s no merit to a proposed class action lawsuit that intends to force it to deliver boats it erroneously informed customers they had won.
The proposed lawsuit, which has yet to be certified, claims that the plaintiffs are owed the boat and trailer as well as punitive damages of $10,000 per class member. It also seeks damages in a yet-to-be determined amount “due to the excitement, stress and disappointment caused by Tim Hortons’ conduct and negligence.”
The act says when a merchant makes statements or publishes advertisements about its goods or services, “the statements or advertisements are binding on that merchant.”
According to the application to the court, “The Tim Hortons mobile app or the Roll Up to Win promotion” would be examples of services.
‘Human Error’
Tim Hortons’ apology came within hours after the April 17 email was sent. In its correction email, the company told customers that the “incorrect information” was sent due to “technical errors” and urged customers to “please disregard” the content of the earlier email, media outlets reported.In a statement to The Canadian Press, Tim Hortons said the first email was sent through “human error,” and once the company became aware of the mistake it quickly notified the affected customers and apologized.
The company added that it believes the lawsuit has no merit and that it will address the matter through the court.
Therefore, the application says, this “prohibits a merchant from raising error as a means of defence, and under consumer law the risk of error is borne by the merchant.”
The application also claims that Tim Hortons is “a repeat offender,” stating that “a similar situation occurred last year where Tim Hortons refused to honour other Roll Up to Win prizes.”Tim Hortons offered $50 gift cards to those customers who were falsely notified they won. And it said the company was in the process of contacting individuals “to express our regret for the disappointment caused by this error.”
The Epoch Times reached out to Tim Hortons for comments but did not hear back by publication time.