Latest news with #SaleofGoodsAct
Cision Canada
24-06-2025
- Health
- Cision Canada
Diamond and Diamond Lawyers Pursue Class Action Lawsuit Against L'Oréal Over Alleged Cancer Risks from "Dark and Lovely" Hair Relaxers
VANCOUVER, BC, June 24, 2025 /CNW/ - Diamond and Diamond Lawyers has filed a proposed class action against L'Oréal and its subsidiaries, alleging the company failed to warn consumers, primarily women of colour, about serious health risks linked to its "Dark and Lovely" hair relaxer products. Filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the lawsuit claims these relaxers contain unsafe levels of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) that are associated with respiratory and cardiovascular problems, diabetes, as well as reproductive cancers, including uterine, endometrial and ovarian cancer. These chemicals can also cause fibroids, damage the nervous and immune systems, as well as lead to neurological and learning disabilities. " These products were marketed as safe for decades. Our lawsuit alleges that L'Oréal ignored scientific evidence and failed to take appropriate action," said Darryl Singer, Head of Class Actions at Diamond and Diamond Lawyers. The Plaintiffs allege that L'Oreal: Has sold and marketed toxic relaxer products since approximately 1970 Failed to test for or detect the presence of EDCs prior to sale Ignored consumer complaints and failed to initiate recalls or safety warnings Mislead the public through deceptive marketing, in violation of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, Competition Act and Sale of Goods Act Scientific studies published in 2012 and 2021 highlighted significant links between hair relaxer use and reproductive health issues. Despite these findings, L'Oréal has not acknowledged any potential danger associated with the products. The lawsuit names two representative plaintiffs and seeks to certify a broader class of affected consumers across Canada.
Economic Times
23-06-2025
- Business
- Economic Times
Wealth edition 23-Jun-2025 to 29-june-2025
In the past few years, you've probably watched with envy as friends and colleagues struck it rich on the latest hot initial public offer (IPO), turning modest investments into crores overnight. It's easy to wonder: what if I'd gotten in on India's next unicorn? That question has fuelled a booming market for pre-IPO shares, where everyday investors—doctors, teachers, small business owners—are staking serious money on startups yet to hit the bourses. But before you sign on the dotted line of a share purchase agreement (SPA), there's a little noticed court ruling that could transform how, and where, you seek remedy if things go awry.A recent Karnataka High Court ruling in Bhaskar Naidu vs Aravind Yadav case has drawn a distinction between SPAs—contracts for buying/selling shares—and shareholders' agreements (SHAs)—contracts governing relationships among shareholders and the investee company, such as voting rights, transferability of shares, exit rights, and dispute resolution—under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 . The court ruled that only disputes pertaining to SHAs can be heard in commercial courts because it qualifies as a 'commercial dispute' under the other words, disputes arising from SPAs don't qualify as commercial disputes and must be filed in regular civil courts, not the speedier commercial benches. Thus, if you've been misled or defrauded in a share deal, you won't get the fast hearing or domain expertise of a commercial bench and your case may languish for years in a civil here's the twist: it appears that the ruling overlooked Section 2(1)(c)(xviii) of the Commercial Courts Act, which explicitly includes disputes arising from 'agreements for the sale of goods or provision of services'. Under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, 'goods' include 'stock and shares.' A combined reading of these provisions suggests SPA disputes should qualify as commercial disputes. Had the court applied this interpretation, it would have opened the commercial courts route to expedite one's SPA-related claims. How does it matter to investors? Because time is money. Commercial courts were set up to deliver swift justice (even within a year) in high value, complex business cases, while civil courts can take 2-5 years or more to reach a decision. In a market as fast-paced as unlisted startups, delays can mean watching share values evaporate, or worse, missing the window to unwind or salvage a bad investment. Be ready for delays: If your SPA claim ends up in civil court, don't expect outcome timelines in months. Factor in likely multi-year waits while sizing up your investment may help, but read the clause: A robust arbitration provision embedded in your SPA has the potential to bypass civil courts entirely. However, any application or plea arising out of an arbitration pertaining to a SPA shall have to be made before the regular benches of a high court (having original side jurisdiction) or any principal civil court of original jurisdiction, and not before the commercial division of such high court or before the commercial court exercising territorial jurisdiction over such arbitration. A watertight arbitration clause which limits the rights of the parties to go for such applications or appeals may streamline the remedies of the disputing parties and also expedite disposal of the with laser focus: Ambiguity is your enemy. If an agreement is ambiguously worded, a court might not treat it as a commercial dispute, delaying enforcement or recovery. Keep share purchase and governance terms in separate contracts. Build explicit language into the SPA so as to recognise it as a 'commercial agreement' and shares as 'goods'. Review your portfolio: If you hold stakes in startups via SPAs, revisit each agreement now. Engage a counsel to assess whether a retrospective amendment or side letter could bring your deal into the commercial courts' fold without jeopardising its enforceability. Watch the appeals: The aforementioned Karnataka High Court ruling may reach the Supreme Court, or prompt legislative clarifications. Stay informed, a favourable overturn may unlock faster dispute resolution for current and past the world of wealth creation, timing isn't just important, it's everything. The fastest path from signature to settlement can be the difference between a quick rebound on a sour deal and watching your capital slog through the backlogged civil court as you line up those pre-IPO opportunities, whether it's the latest fintech darling or a stealth mode biotech, you owe it to yourself to heed the fine print of your SPA. Make sure your contract doesn't leave you stuck in the slow lane; demand clarity, carve out commercial or arbitration corridors, and keep those documents distinct. After all, a single overlooked provision can change the game, and your returns, forever. The author is Partner, IC Universal Legal
Vancouver Sun
22-05-2025
- Business
- Vancouver Sun
Langley couple sues hot tub company over fire that damaged home
Two Langley homeowners are suing a hot tub company for a fire that caused extensive damage to their home. The lawsuit, filed in B.C. Supreme Court by Dan Iacovelli and Sherry Lee, alleges a 'dangerous defect' in the hot tub and its control mechanism. It says the hot tub, purchased in 2016, was a Zenith Curve Luxury Class, 56-jet, two-pump model. The lawsuit says it was repaired in 2021, which included replacing the spa pack — the control box that operates a hot tub's components — along with diverter valves and top side controls. In May 2023, the lawsuit said, a fire started in the hot tub, allegedly 'caused by the failure of some or all of the hot tub components.' The fire spread to the property, which contained two rental suites, and caused extensive damage, it alleged. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. 'Any or all of the hot tub components were capable of failing, overloading, overheating, short-circuiting and igniting a fire' and any of them could have been a dangerous defect, it said. The owners suffered damages, losses and expenses, including emergency and permanent repairs to the home, packing, moving, storing, repairing or replacing the home's contents, additional living expenses, strata special assessments, insurance and strata deductibles, increased insurance premiums, loss of rental income, loss of use of the home and a decrease in the property's value, according the lawsuit. The lawsuit names Canadian Coast Spas and its related companies, plus a number of U.S.-based parts manufacturers, which it said were responsible for different parts of the hot tub. The lawsuit alleges negligence, breach of contract and negligent representation by the companies. The lawsuit seeks damages, including those under B.C.'s Sale of Goods Act, Canada's Competition Act and both provincial and federal consumer protection laws. None of the allegations have been proven in court. Messages left with the lawyer listed on the lawsuit and with Canadian Coast Spas weren't immediately returned.
New Straits Times
20-05-2025
- Automotive
- New Straits Times
Lemon law on the table to protect car buyers
KUALA LUMPUR: The Domestic Trade and Cost of Living Ministry has drafted a cabinet paper proposing amendments to the Consumer Protection Act 1999 to include "lemon law" provisions, aimed at bolstering consumer rights in the automotive industry. Deputy Minister Fuziah Salleh told the New Straits Times that the paper will be submitted for policy approval at the cabinet level before amendments to the act are implemented. She said the ministry is currently obtaining feedback from relevant ministries and agencies, such as the Finance Ministry, the Attorney-General's Chambers, Economy Ministry, Transport Ministry and Investment, Trade and Industry Ministry. Fuziah said this follows the completion of a six-month legal study on lemon law, conducted from June to November last year. The study was initiated to assess and recommend the necessary steps to be taken to enhance consumer protection in the automotive industry. "Based on the findings of the study, the ministry concluded that there is a need to establish a specific legal framework such as a lemon law to address issues and limitations related to consumer protection in the automotive industry. "Since the Consumer Protection Act already provides mechanisms for remedies and dispute resolution in line with the fundamental principles of lemon law, the ministry is of the view that it is appropriate for these legal principles to be integrated through amendments to the act. "This would strengthen the existing provisions and establish new regulations that will outline more detailed procedures or mechanisms for dispute resolution, particularly for compensation claims involving new vehicles. "Integrating these principles through amendments to the act is seen as a practical and effective approach," she said. Currently, there are four existing legislations with lemon law features namely the Consumer Protection Act, the Contract Act, the Sale of Goods Act and Hire-Purchase Act 1967.
