When the mechanic operating a vehicle repair shop in Lacombe, Alberta first noticed the $4,200 hydraulic lift shuddering during its descent cycle in early 2024, he assumed the problem was a minor calibration issue that a quick adjustment would resolve. The British Columbia retailer that sold the unit agreed, dispatching a replacement control valve within days and assuring the mechanic that hydraulic systems sometimes needed fine-tuning after shipping. The replacement valve did not resolve the problem. Over the following weeks, the lift continued to exhibit erratic behavior: the platform would stall mid-raise, the safety locks would engage prematurely, and on 2 occasions the unit dropped several centimeters without warning while a vehicle was elevated. Each time the mechanic reported a malfunction, the retailer offered another component, another diagnosis, another promise that the next fix would be the last. By the time the mechanic had endured 4 separate repair attempts over 3 months, his patience had expired and his shop's productivity had suffered measurably. The question he now faced was whether Alberta law permitted him to reject the lift outright and demand the return of his $1,500 deposit, or whether the seller's willingness to continue repairing the unit obligated him to keep accepting fixes indefinitely.