5

I want to sue a company in Canada (British Columbia) for false advertising. Essentially, they advertised on their website that they provide a specific service, I paid them for that and a few other services, but they did not deliver what I asked. This caused me extra costs and time. When I contacted their customer service, they confirmed via email that they do not provide that service.

I have their website and email saying complete opposite things, so this seems to be a pretty clear-cut case to me that I'm likely going to win.

There's a problem though: this company is the only one that provides this kind of services in my area. If they had to ban me as a consequence of me suing them, that would have a huge impact on me.

Honestly, I would like to settle privately and get a small refund for what I paid, plus for for the extra costs and time that this problem caused to me, but I'm also very afraid of contacting them again because I had a conversation with a manager that this issue got escalated to, and they were very hostile. They don't seem to understand that their website advertises a service that they don't offer (I know this might sound absurd, but that's what I'm dealing with), and I've been threatened by this manager to be banned if I didn't stop complaining.

So I would like to ask: if I sue them, I win, and they ban me, do I have any legal basis to force them to get me unbanned?

Improve this question
3
  • 3
    We don't answer individual question about individual cases, you need a lawyer who has all your case's context. But a word of advice outside of legal matters... if they ban you, you don't get their service, you sue them for banning you and after a year and a half of legal battle you get a judgement saying you are right, they have to service you... does that sound like a workable outcome to you, not having their service for that long? Because being legally right doesn't come over night. Commented Jun 6 at 7:23
  • I don't see how this is a question about an individual case. I just provided more context to make the question clearer, but if needed I can remove the extra context. Besides, I understand that legal processes can be lengthy, but are you perhaps suggesting that people should kneel in front of companies that mistreat their customers just because they can make your life even more miserable? But to answer your question: yes, it would be acceptable to have to wait to get the ban reversed, if that scenario happens. Commented Jun 7 at 0:57
  • 2
    Then I suggest you phrase your question as a hypothetical. Remove any reference to "I" or "me" and use generic names like "Alice" and "Bob". We do answer hypotheticals as best we can, with the obvious caveat that only a real lawyer in your juristiction can actually know what is what. I suggest you give more context for the company in generic form, too. I suspect a candy manufacturer has other obligations than lets say the waterworks or the electricity monopolist in your region. Commented Jun 7 at 6:39

0

Reset to default

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.