Overview of the ongoing saga, which has been unresolved for over 3 years, accompanied by publicly files court documents at the bottom of this page.
Interest was shown in trying the company’s products, prompting the offer of a few samples from personal stock with a clear explanation that these were for trial purposes only and not available for wholesale. The products, which typically retailed for CAD 250 (USD 200) and above, were on sale at the time for CAD 150-170. One sweater was purchased for CAD 150 at the sale price, with the original price communicated transparently. A 70/30 revenue-sharing agreement, standard in such arrangements, was reached. After the agreement was confirmed, the products were provided, with the expectation of an e-transfer as per the contractual terms.
Following the shipment, it became apparent something was amiss. Attempts to contact the buyer at markets where they were vending were met with evasion. Despite repeated efforts over two months, excuses were made regarding delays in payment—ranging from personal and health issues to technical reasons. Eventually, only 30% of the agreed amount was transferred, accompanied by an unsubstantiated claim of having purchased the products wholesale. This contradicted the clearly stated terms of the agreement.
Recognizing a recurring pattern of unfulfilled agreements, a court case was filed. Research revealed five prior legal disputes involving the individual, one dating back to 2009. Previous victims were contacted, leading to a collaborative effort that enabled one to recover funds by seizing and selling the individual’s vehicle.
During legal proceedings, various arguments were made to justify the breach of contract. Claims shifted from a supposed wholesale agreement to a misinterpretation of the 70/30 revenue-sharing terms, with calculations based on the sale price instead of the retail price. Despite these claims, the individual sold the products at a market and transferred only 30% of the revenue even after being fully aware of the agreed terms.
The case was settled with a 50/50 split based on inventory numbers and a payment plan of CAD 50 per month. However, payments ceased after an inquiry about future business, which was declined until the outstanding balance was resolved. Following a year of no payments, the matter was brought back to court, where the individual made an unsupported claim of overpayment, providing no documentation or response to substantiate it.
Unfortunately, the challenges faced during this dispute, combined with broader business difficulties, contributed to the company’s closure. This situation underscores the importance of transparency, accountability, and ethical practices in business dealings, highlighting the obstacles encountered in pursuing a mission to support communities.
- em1
- em2
- em3 Inquiring for more product
- em4 Final No/ Slander, Hate began
- em5 Payment after settlement
- m6
- txtscrn Text Messages
- webpost Consignment agreement
This is a community matter that deserves attention from local outlets such as Castanet News, Kelowna Now, and Kelowna Capital News.