Skip to content Skip to main navigation Skip to footer

Shelley-Ann Best v. Standard Distribution and Sales













HEARING DATE May 8th, 2019

June 12th, 2019

DATE OF DELIVERY June 12th, 2019


1. This Complaint has been brought by Ms. Shelley-Ann Best as Complainant against the Respondent Standards Distribution & Sales (Barbados) Limited for redress under sections 9 of the Consumer Guarantees Act, Chapter 326E of the Laws of Barbados.  The Complainant is represented by the Office of Public Counsel and Ms. Alexis Halliday, Retail Sales Manager of the Respondent attended the hearing on behalf of the Respondent who is represented by Ms. Susanna Thompson, Attorney-at-Law.  


2. For purposes of this judgement the definitions referenced in Section 2 of the Consumer Guarantees Act Chapter 326E of the Laws of Barbados refer.  

3. In particular the below definitions of Consumer and Supplier refer.

Under section 2 of the Act, “consumer” means an individual who acquires from a  supplier goods or a service of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption and does not acquire the goods or services or hold himself out as acquiring the goods or services for the purpose of resupplying them in trade or consuming them or it in the course of a process of production or manufacture or in the case of goods does not acquire them or hold himself out as acquiring them for the purpose of repairing or treating other goods or fixtures on land”.

Under section 2 of the Act, “supplier” means a person who in trade supplies goods to a consumer by transferring the ownership or the possession of the goods pursuant to a contract of sale, exchange, lease, hire or hire-purchase to which that person is party; or transferring the ownership of the goods pursuant to a gift from that person or supplies a service to a consumer.”

4. At the outset it is noted that based on the evidence given by both the Complainant and the Respondent, the Complainant is duly qualified as a consumer under the Act and the respondent is duly qualified a supplier of goods under the Act.  It is further noted that the contract was one of hire-purchase.


5. The Complainant’s evidence is that on the 19th day of December 2018 she visited the Respondent’s store where after browsing the store and after some discussion with an employee of the Respondent on the purchase of a Frigidaire thirty (30) inch glass stove with a glass cover and pull out shelves she duly purchased the said stove for $799.00. The purchase of the stove was by way of hire purchase and in her evidence the Complaint stated that the sum of $300.00 was paid on account of the cost of the stove with the intent that the balance be paid within the following three months in three instalments to avoid interest charges and obtain the item at cash price.

6. The stove was delivered on December 24, 2018.  In her evidence the Complainant observed that the stove was dropped by the delivery men employed by the Respondent on delivery but was advised that the box was padded and as such there ought to be minimal damage.

7. The Complainant in her evidence state that due to the Christmas preparations she was only in a position to open the box and inspect the stove on December 26, 2019 at which time she noticed that the stove that was delivered did not match the description of the stove which she had chosen following the discussion with the Respondent’s agent and or employee.

8. The Complainant then contacted the Respondent store and advised Ms. Trudy McCollin, the sales clerk who had prepared the hire purchase agreement that an error had occurred and that the wrong stove had been delivered.  Ms. McCollin apologized but then advised the Complainant that there had been a mix up in the pricing of the stove and that the stove she received corresponded with the price paid.

9. The Complainant was then advised that in order to obtain the stove which she wanted, she would have to pay an additional $390.00.

10. The Complainant however was not satisfied with this approach and filed the complaint herein in which she claims the that the Respondent had breached its contract with her by failing to deliver the stove which matched the description of that which she chose and for which she had paid the deposit.

11. In reply, the Respondent accepted that there was an error with the ticketing and pricing of the Stove and that they were willing to provide the Complainant with the stove which the Complainant had chosen and paid the deposit.


12. The Tribunal has noted that the pricing and ticketing of the stove is solely the responsibility of the Respondent and orders that the Respondent provide the Complainant with the stove to match exactly that which she had initially chosen.  At the request of the Tribunal the Respondent stated that the model number of the stove which the Complainant had chosen is BB-30 ST 3M KQS and not 30C 3 MDQG as was delivered on December 24, 2018.

13. The Tribunal orders that the Respondent is to 

– Deliver to the Complainant the stove model number BB-30 ST 3M KQS to the Complainant’s home address on or before June 19, 2019.

  • Cancel the Purchase Order for the model number 30C 3 MDQG and re-issue a new Purchase Order for the model number BB-30 ST 3 M KQS so that the hire purchase terms would commence at the time of delivery of the stove, no later than June 19, 2019.
  • Collect the stove model number 30C 3 MDQG from the Complainant’s address at no additional cost to the complainant.


Fiona Hinds Q.C.



Julie Harris-Hill

Deputy Chairman


Jamila Burgess



Livingstone Trotman



Anton Lovell