Rina Shoes review: Winter jacket

Re: Request for Refund and Legal Action Regarding Defective Armani Winter Jacket

I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to bring a matter of concern before the honorable court. The purpose of this correspondence is to present a request for a refund and seek legal action in relation to a defective Armani winter jacket that I purchased.

On October 2021 I acquired an Armani winter jacket from Rinas Boutique, located at 248 Steeles Avenue West 2 & 3, in Thornhill, Ontario. Regrettably, after a mere two weeks of use, the jacket began to exhibit severe defects. The down filling started to escape, accompanied by other components of the lining. In light of this issue, I promptly contacted the store owner, Ms. Inga Birfer, in an attempt to rectify the situation.

To my disappointment, Ms. Birfer stated that she intended to have the jacket repaired by a Russian tailor, rather than adhering to the customary procedures for handling defective merchandise, such as returning it to the manufacturer, offering an exchange, or providing store credit. Furthermore, she refused to provide an official Armani certificate, which would validate the authenticity of the jacket and include essential instructions for care and materials. I must emphasize that no Armani-branded box, label, or packaging accompanied the purchase.

It is important to note that Rinas Boutique presents all items as genuine branded products and prices them accordingly. This creates a reasonable expectation among customers that the products are authentic. However, subsequent inquiries made at an official Armani store revealed that acquiring a certificate from the seller, in this case, Ms. Birfer, is a prerequisite for any potential exchanges or returns. Unfortunately, Ms. Birfer has displayed a lack of cooperation in this matter.

Upon careful examination of the circumstances, it is my belief that the actions of Rina's Boutique have breached the following sections of Ontario's consumer protection laws:

Consumer Protection Act:

Section 14 (2) (1):

“A representation that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses, ingredients, benefits or qualities they do not have.”

Section 14 (2) (2):

“A representation that the person who is to supply the goods or services has sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation or connection the person does not have.”

Section 14 (2) (3):

“A representation that the goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, grade, style or model, if they are not.”

Rinas Boutique presented the Armani winter jacket as a genuine branded product and priced it accordingly. However, the absence of an official Armani certificate, along with the lack of Armani-branded box, label, or packaging, raises doubts about the authenticity of the jacket. This constitutes a misrepresentation of goods under the Consumer Protection Act. The Act prohibits making false or misleading representations about goods, including their quality, authenticity, or origin.

Sale of Goods Act:

Section 14:

“Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied condition that the goods will correspond with the description, and, if the sale is by sample as well as by description, it is not sufficient that the bulk of the goods corresponds with the sample if the goods do not also correspond with the description.” R.S. O. 1990, c.S.1, s. 14.

According to Section 14, there is an implied condition that the jacket should correspond with the description given at the time of sale, and this was not the case. The jacket was described as a genuine, luxury, high-grade Armani piece, but Ms. Birfer failed to provide a product which fit this description,

Section 15 (2):

“Subject to this Act and any statute in that behalf, there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale, except as follows: Where goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description (whether the seller is the manufacturer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods will be of merchantable quality, but if the buyer has examined the goods, there is no implied condition as regards defects that such examination ought to have revealed.”

I acquired the jacket from Rinas Boutique, which presents itself as a seller of genuine branded products. As per Section 15 (2), when goods are bought based on a description from a seller who deals in goods of that description, there is an implied condition that the goods will be of merchantable quality. Since the defects in the jacket make it fall short of satisfactory quality, it is a breach of this section.

Section 16 (2) (c):

“In the case of a contract for sale by sample, there is an implied condition, that the goods will be free from any defect rendering them unmerchantable that would not be apparent on reasonable examination of the sample.” R.S. O. 1990, c.S.1, s. 16.

Section 16 (2) (c) implies that the Armani jacket should be free from any defect that would make it unsuitable for sale, and this defect should not be apparent upon reasonable examination of the sample. If the defects in the jacket were not evident upon examining the sample, it would be a breach of this section. This was the case when purchasing the jacket, which didn’t immediately have any deformities or outstanding flaws, I also trusted Ms. Birfer that this piece was of utmost quality, based on her word.

Given these circumstances, I am led to conclude that the items sold at Rinas Boutique may be counterfeit, masquerading as genuine branded products. I respectfully request that the court require Ms. Birfer to provide an official permit demonstrating her authorization to sell Armani products in Canada. It is my belief that she does not possess such a permit, thereby engaging in the sale of counterfeit merchandise under the guise of authenticity.

In light of the aforementioned facts, I kindly request the court's intervention in facilitating a full refund for the defective jacket, including any associated legal fees and expenses incurred in pursuing this matter. I firmly believe that addressing this issue promptly and appropriately is crucial, not only for the financial loss I have suffered but also for the integrity of the brand and the trust of customers who invest substantial amounts in acquiring brand-name items.

I present this case before the small claims court to seek redress for the purchase, legal costs, and any other applicable damages.

I kindly request that the company acknowledges this letter and guides me on the appropriate course of action. Your prompt attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. I have enclosed all relevant documentation and evidence for your perusal.

Thank you for your consideration and commitment to justice. I trust that the honorable court will handle this matter with the utmost diligence and impartiality.