We purchased a house in Nov 2020. During the review of the legal agreements (a huge stack of papers) it was certainly not made clear, what the terms and conditions were of the water heater agreement.
Of course we signed off, as with the rest of the papers. In my case the previous owner agreed to rent, we took on the obligation, without real disclosure of the implied costs.
2 months later, I got the bill for $40/mth. $36.36, + HST.
So i enquired, and got a huge run around.
Buried deep in the legals is the following implications.
The tank is a GSW - G850T45N-PDV-ES2 30. Rona's price is $940.
Assume that Enercare does huge purchasing volume and likely gets 30-40% off.
So their cost would be about $600 to $650. Ok - excluding labour to install.
During the term of the contract, the previous owner would have already paid about $720 towards that.
The life of the contract is at their determination, but 10-15 years is about normal.
So total payments would be about $4300 to 6500 dollars
For a $950 tank!
OK - since it does not make financial sense, I want out of the agreement
I was told that I MUST buy out the water heater, at $1950.
That twice the purchase price, on used equipment, that is already partially depreciated.
I would call that extortionate.
I said "I've not even seen the contract or its terms"
They said: "well you signed the contact so too bad, you are stuck with it. The issue is between you and the seller or you and your lawyer".
1 - I've never seen business that has this kind of ROI
2 - IMO - these contract terms are clearly anti-competitive, since the consumer is prevented from exercising options for cheaper alternatives. A case was filed against them peviously https://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic ... 04495.html
"information gathered in the course of the inquiry indicated that the magnitude of the required buyout prices, and the duration for which they were required, went substantially beyond a level commensurate with recovery of Enercare's initial investment."
However, they dropped the case due to: "insufficient evidence upon which to conclude that Enercare's alleged conduct has contravened the abuse of dominance provisions of the Act"
But maybe more examples should be brought to that board
3 - the overall costs and corporate behaviour are absolutely outragious.
Does anyone know about options?