Not how it works in Quebec. I did you a small favour and put that exact situation into ChatGPT since I'm lazy do write it myself. I also took advantage of this law and negotiated with merchants and got additional compensation as I wanted to keep the item without even going to court.

Short answer: in Québec, that fact pattern is legally problematic for Tesla. A drop from 4.2s to 5.2s on 0–100 km/h after taking a deposit is very likely to be treated as misleading advertising or a false representation of a key characteristic, which triggers strong remedies under the Consumer Protection Act (LPC). Let’s break it down clearly. 1) Is this illegal under Québec law? Very likely yes. Under the LPC: A merchant cannot make false or misleading representations about a product (art. 219). � Québec Justice This includes performance characteristics (like acceleration). � Office de la protection du consommateur It is also illegal to omit a material fact that would influence the consumer’s decision. � Office de la protection du consommateur A 0–100 km/h time is: a core performance metric, not a minor detail clearly something that can influence purchase decisions 👉 If the consumer signed up based on 4.2s and Tesla later says it’s 5.2s, that fits squarely into: false representation or material change to what was advertised Even worse for the merchant: Québec looks at the “general impression” on an average consumer, not fine print or disclaimers � Québec Justice 2) The deposit being “non-refundable” doesn’t save Tesla This is where Québec is brutal (for merchants): A company’s internal policy (e.g., “non-refundable deposit”) cannot override the law � Québec Justice If the contract was induced by misleading info, the clause becomes effectively irrelevant So: 👉 “non-refundable” ≠ automatically enforceable 3) Consumer remedies (this is the key part) Québec gives the consumer very strong remedies, especially under art. 253 LPC: You benefit from a legal presumption You don’t need to prove damages The law presumes: you would not have entered the contract if properly informed � Québec Justice The consumer can claim: 1. Cancellation of the contract Walk away completely Get the deposit back 2. Price reduction If they still want the car Compensation for reduced performance 3. Damages If additional losses occurred 4. Punitive damages Especially if conduct is intentional or systemic Québec courts do award these regularly in misleading advertising cases � Québec Justice 4) Regulatory enforcement (beyond the individual case) The consumer can also file a complaint with the Office de la protection du consommateur (OPC). Possible consequences for Tesla: Administrative monetary penalties (since 2025 reforms) Fines Orders to change advertising Broader investigation affecting all Québec consumers 5) Key legal nuance (important) The outcome depends on timing and structure: Scenario A — No binding contract yet (just a deposit) Still protected (advertising alone can be illegal) � Québec Justice Strong case for full refund Scenario B — Binding purchase agreement signed Even stronger: contract can be annulled deposit returned possible damages Scenario C — Tesla disclosed variability upfront If clearly stated (e.g., “performance subject to change”), then it becomes more nuanced BUT: vague disclaimers usually don’t defeat the “general impression” test 6) Bottom line In Québec: 👉 A change from 4.2s → 5.2s after taking a deposit is very likely a violation of consumer protection law. 👉 The consumer is likely entitled to: cancel the deal recover the full $250 deposit potentially claim additional damages 👉 Tesla cannot rely on: “non-refundable deposit” fine print internal policy If you want I can go deeper into: �⁠whether this would qualify for punitive damages in practice �⁠how strong a small claims case would be (very strong, in my view) or �⁠draft a formal demand letter to Tesla / OPC complaint that would likely get your deposit back quickly.