We, Loondocks Inc, purchased two Viking Induction Ranges with Commercial Warranties.
During the period of sale and shortly thereafter there were a group of companies involved in this transaction including:
Comerco Services Inc. sold us the commercial warranty for $1600
We reached out to Tasco Distributers to assist in sourcing induction stoves for our sustainable restaurant. The technology is safer and more efficient.
Before the sale could be finalized, Chris Elliott from Tasco indicated he was having problems securing the manufacturer’s warranty. As we were preparing to source another product, Chris contacted me saying not to, and that he had secured a “worry-free” extended commercial warranty, but this was at a premium of $1630.00. This was hailed as a solution to all concerns, and assured me the coverage would help me if the stoves failed during operations and my business was stranded without the means to deliver our product. We purchased the stoves solely based on this assurance from Tasco, the warranty documentation provided by Comerco, and the “commercial” claims by Amiel Distributions about the ranges they were selling us.
The stoves faulted in Mid June 2012, right as our restaurant heads into the busy season in cottage country. I contacted Tasco and a service call was placed. They referred Comerco to execute the warranty.
Before a service technician contacted me, four more of the stove elements failed, causing the units to be completely unusable. Portable camping burners were purchased to keep the restaurant from failing. To be without proper stoves in peak season causes catastrophic challenges to operations. We incurred additional labour expenses to meet our production needs with temporary stoves.
After following up again due to significant delay, I was contacted by “Chris” from Total Appliance Service (as contracted by Comerco). Chris was rude and seemed upset that I had complained about the delay.
He was able to learn something from flashing error lights that I had witnessed and communicated to him over the phone
He indicated parts might be several weeks away. I indicated this was unacceptable as this is a commercial warranty and I depend heavily on the operation of these ranges. He said he would follow up but never did.
The indicators of poor service, excessive delay, and undue hardship are evident throughout this process, by all parties involved.
I proceeded to call Tasco and Comerco to complain about the situation, they promised to have the technician follow up asap.
I heard back from Chris again, even more annoyed that I had complained again. He said he was not going to be able to make it onsite for several weeks, because we are 2 hours from his location in Toronto. I indicated this is unacceptable, he responded saying his schedule was dictated via email orders he was given by Comerco to take care of other jobs. I asked to be CC’d on emails so I can follow up with Comerco to ensure commercial receives priority, he refused and also refused to give me contact info for the person telling him what to do. I expressed my frustration, and he responded saying “its your own fault for buying induction for a restaurant”. I rebuffed his comment and demanded better service, he responded by saying “You know what kid, I am going to wait to order the parts now” and he hung up the phone.
Important to note: No service technician was ever on site at the restaurant to diagnose the problem. A further indicator of unacceptable service and warranty execution.
There are countless examples of restaurants using induction in restaurants across the country. This technology has proven commercial capabilities, and Viking is a commercial equipment producer as well.
It then became clear the warranty, nor the companies who sold me the product, are going to help my business recover from this failure. During subsequent conversations we requested that Tasco remove the stoves and refund our money. This request was refused.
On July 11, 2012, Amiel Distribution had been requested to provide a diagnosis of the problem occurring with the range. They were informed that the ranges were being used in a commercial restaurant. After an extended delay on August 1, 2012 their “Sr. Electronics Applications Engineer” concluded the cause of the problem was the use of an alternate power source from either solar or wind. This was incorrect and this misdiagnosis caused further delays.
This 3 week delay to produce a mis-informed diagnosis further supports our claims of extremely poor after-sales service and warranty execution.
Comerco escalated our claim but only provided delayed responses offering no reasonable solutions.
Once it was realized the stoves were removed from the restaurant, Comerco offered write a cheque, but only for what it would have cost them to repair, and under the condition of the 3 year warranty becoming null and void. This is hardly a viable solution.
We incurred additional costs during this process, including the removal and delivery of the stoves to Tasco Warehouses in Mississauga, and the labour to install a replacement range.
After several conversations the only option provided by Tasco was for us to deliver the ranges back to them, and they would repair them and sell them on a consignment basis. We delivered the ranges in December of 2012.
Tasco could not successfully repair the ranges until May 2013, the timing being a further indicator of the difficulty and time delay for the repair.
The following are our assertions:
Collectively, the group clearly indicated, with no doubt, that the product was suitable for the purpose intended.
We relied on that representation in making the purchase, and outfitting the restaurant for their use.
Comerco provided a commercial warranty in support of its purpose.
We purchased the stoves solely based on the assurance from Tasco, the commercial warranty d provided by Comerco, and the “commercial” claims by Amiel Distributions regarding the ranges in question.
Stoves failed to perform as represented.
The commercial warranty failed to provide any reasonable remedy for failure of the product to perform or provide any warning to that effect.
By providing a warranty you effectively stated that the ranges would perform in a commercial setting and adequate protection would be provided by the warranty.
A warranty is designed to provide protection in cases where a failure occurs. It does not prevent a failure from occurring. If there was knowledge that the ranges would not perform, a warranty would be an inadequate solution especially in a restaurant setting.
No service information and response time was provided to us at the time of sale.
Comerco attempted to engage a repair company upon the first failure notification but misunderstood that the products were not gas ranges but induction ranges. Several weeks delay ensued.
Then Comerco engaged a repair company (Total Appliance Service) situated more than two hours from our location creating a situation that the response to a service request would be poor.
The repair company failed to respond in a timely manner declaring parts availability and/ or travel time as the issues. We believe the latter (travel time) was the issue.
These circumstances should have been addressed by Comerco at the time of sale to ensure that the expectations from the warranty could be met. It is clear you had no reasonable assumption of ability to execute the warranty within a remotely acceptable timeframe.
We have tried to resolve this fairly with all parties involved but have received delayed response and inadequate service, consistent throughout this entire process.
In summary, the commercial warranty provided a representation of performance and then failed to provide any reasonable remedy for failure. We incurred significant losses as a result. Our losses were inadequately mitigated through the resale process
Comerco Services Reviews
We, Loondocks Inc, purchased two Viking Induction Ranges with Commercial Warranties.
During the period of sale and shortly thereafter there were a group of companies involved in this transaction including:
Comerco Services Inc. sold us the commercial warranty for $1600
We reached out to Tasco Distributers to assist in sourcing induction stoves for our sustainable restaurant. The technology is safer and more efficient.
Before the sale could be finalized, Chris Elliott from Tasco indicated he was having problems securing the manufacturer’s warranty. As we were preparing to source another product, Chris contacted me saying not to, and that he had secured a “worry-free” extended commercial warranty, but this was at a premium of $1630.00. This was hailed as a solution to all concerns, and assured me the coverage would help me if the stoves failed during operations and my business was stranded without the means to deliver our product. We purchased the stoves solely based on this assurance from Tasco, the warranty documentation provided by Comerco, and the “commercial” claims by Amiel Distributions about the ranges they were selling us.
The stoves faulted in Mid June 2012, right as our restaurant heads into the busy season in cottage country. I contacted Tasco and a service call was placed. They referred Comerco to execute the warranty.
Before a service technician contacted me, four more of the stove elements failed, causing the units to be completely unusable. Portable camping burners were purchased to keep the restaurant from failing. To be without proper stoves in peak season causes catastrophic challenges to operations. We incurred additional labour expenses to meet our production needs with temporary stoves.
After following up again due to significant delay, I was contacted by “Chris” from Total Appliance Service (as contracted by Comerco). Chris was rude and seemed upset that I had complained about the delay.
He was able to learn something from flashing error lights that I had witnessed and communicated to him over the phone
He indicated parts might be several weeks away. I indicated this was unacceptable as this is a commercial warranty and I depend heavily on the operation of these ranges. He said he would follow up but never did.
The indicators of poor service, excessive delay, and undue hardship are evident throughout this process, by all parties involved.
I proceeded to call Tasco and Comerco to complain about the situation, they promised to have the technician follow up asap.
I heard back from Chris again, even more annoyed that I had complained again. He said he was not going to be able to make it onsite for several weeks, because we are 2 hours from his location in Toronto. I indicated this is unacceptable, he responded saying his schedule was dictated via email orders he was given by Comerco to take care of other jobs. I asked to be CC’d on emails so I can follow up with Comerco to ensure commercial receives priority, he refused and also refused to give me contact info for the person telling him what to do. I expressed my frustration, and he responded saying “its your own fault for buying induction for a restaurant”. I rebuffed his comment and demanded better service, he responded by saying “You know what kid, I am going to wait to order the parts now” and he hung up the phone.
Important to note: No service technician was ever on site at the restaurant to diagnose the problem. A further indicator of unacceptable service and warranty execution.
There are countless examples of restaurants using induction in restaurants across the country. This technology has proven commercial capabilities, and Viking is a commercial equipment producer as well.
It then became clear the warranty, nor the companies who sold me the product, are going to help my business recover from this failure. During subsequent conversations we requested that Tasco remove the stoves and refund our money. This request was refused.
On July 11, 2012, Amiel Distribution had been requested to provide a diagnosis of the problem occurring with the range. They were informed that the ranges were being used in a commercial restaurant. After an extended delay on August 1, 2012 their “Sr. Electronics Applications Engineer” concluded the cause of the problem was the use of an alternate power source from either solar or wind. This was incorrect and this misdiagnosis caused further delays.
This 3 week delay to produce a mis-informed diagnosis further supports our claims of extremely poor after-sales service and warranty execution.
Comerco escalated our claim but only provided delayed responses offering no reasonable solutions.
Once it was realized the stoves were removed from the restaurant, Comerco offered write a cheque, but only for what it would have cost them to repair, and under the condition of the 3 year warranty becoming null and void. This is hardly a viable solution.
We incurred additional costs during this process, including the removal and delivery of the stoves to Tasco Warehouses in Mississauga, and the labour to install a replacement range.
After several conversations the only option provided by Tasco was for us to deliver the ranges back to them, and they would repair them and sell them on a consignment basis. We delivered the ranges in December of 2012.
Tasco could not successfully repair the ranges until May 2013, the timing being a further indicator of the difficulty and time delay for the repair.
The following are our assertions:
Collectively, the group clearly indicated, with no doubt, that the product was suitable for the purpose intended.
We relied on that representation in making the purchase, and outfitting the restaurant for their use.
Comerco provided a commercial warranty in support of its purpose.
We purchased the stoves solely based on the assurance from Tasco, the commercial warranty d provided by Comerco, and the “commercial” claims by Amiel Distributions regarding the ranges in question.
Stoves failed to perform as represented.
The commercial warranty failed to provide any reasonable remedy for failure of the product to perform or provide any warning to that effect.
By providing a warranty you effectively stated that the ranges would perform in a commercial setting and adequate protection would be provided by the warranty.
A warranty is designed to provide protection in cases where a failure occurs. It does not prevent a failure from occurring. If there was knowledge that the ranges would not perform, a warranty would be an inadequate solution especially in a restaurant setting.
No service information and response time was provided to us at the time of sale.
Comerco attempted to engage a repair company upon the first failure notification but misunderstood that the products were not gas ranges but induction ranges. Several weeks delay ensued.
Then Comerco engaged a repair company (Total Appliance Service) situated more than two hours from our location creating a situation that the response to a service request would be poor.
The repair company failed to respond in a timely manner declaring parts availability and/ or travel time as the issues. We believe the latter (travel time) was the issue.
These circumstances should have been addressed by Comerco at the time of sale to ensure that the expectations from the warranty could be met. It is clear you had no reasonable assumption of ability to execute the warranty within a remotely acceptable timeframe.
We have tried to resolve this fairly with all parties involved but have received delayed response and inadequate service, consistent throughout this entire process.
In summary, the commercial warranty provided a representation of performance and then failed to provide any reasonable remedy for failure. We incurred significant losses as a result. Our losses were inadequately mitigated through the resale process