In a commercial repair dispute, the appellant challenged the trial judgment concerning three monetary amounts arising from transmission repairs and a counterclaim.
The majority held there was no reversible error, including on the principal issue of whether the respondent's failure to replace or warn about an oil cooler fell within the warranty for workmanship.
The majority concluded that the oil cooler was integral to the transmission and that the failure constituted a failure of workmanship within the warranty's ambit.
The appeal was dismissed with costs, with one judge dissenting on the interpretation and application of the warranty provision.
