To the consumer a warranty should insure that a product meets their quality expectations, and the word quality is understood to mean the absence of any defect.
A warranty usually addresses the integrity of a product and the responsibility for the repair or replacement of defective parts by the supplier.
So how is a defect defined?
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary a defect is an imperfection that impairs worth or utility. The literal translation of the Latin defectus is a lack of something necessary for completeness, adequacy, or perfection.
In British Columbia the provincial government has, through the Homeowner Protection Act minimum standards of coverage, redefined this globally accepted definition of a defect to be something much less, and all for the benefit of an inept residential construction industry.
This Act is a flagrant upholding of, industry first, families second. Are you paying attention Christy Clark?
The 2-5-10 home warranty insurance, which is supposed to meet the expectations of homebuyers and protect them from shoddy practices, only covers (sometimes) the failure of builders to meet the MINIMUM STANDARDS of the building code, as antiquated as it is.
Because of the chronic underachieving building industry, which has great difficulty even meeting these minimum standards, there is very little comfort for the homebuyer, or any real legislated protection.
There is a complete absence of substance in the 2-5-10 warranty and homebuyers are being hijacked by the false impression given in industry propaganda, such as this article, and the provincial government is party to it.
The word quality should not be allowed in any of the marketing used by the industry, because let’s face the facts here; those marketing materials will likely represent the best quality the consumer will receive from the builder.
So I ask, should all marketing materials have a mandatory caution logo disclosing: “We try to build based on the minimum standard of the building code”?