B.C. furniture store to pay damages to couple whose cushions need constant ‘fluffing’

A sofa is pictured in this undated stock image. (Shutterstock) (Shutterstock)

A British Columbia furniture store was ordered to pay $500 in damages to a couple who bought a sofa without knowing it was stuffed with feathers, after a provincial court judge heard evidence the couple was “not prepared to continually fluff the cushions.”

Donna and Thomas Dobko filed the claim against the Muse & Merchant store in Coquitlam, where they purchased the sofa and two ottomans in November 2023. Seven months later, they went back to the store to complain the cushions were deflating after they were sat on for an hour or two.

The store manager told them the feather-filled sofa was not defective but “required regular maintenance by fluffing the cushions,” Judge Wilson Lee wrote in his decision, published online Thursday.

This apparently came as a surprise to the couple, who demanded a refund.

“Ms. Dobko said she would not have purchased the sofa had she known it was stuffed with feathers,” the judge wrote. “Mr. Dobko said he was not prepared to continually fluff the cushions.”

The store management refused to refund the $5,608.95 the Dobkos paid for the sofa set, but did show the couple how to maintain the cushions.

• Download the CTV News App for breaking news alerts and video on all the top stories

The management also suggested the feather stuffing could be replaced with a foam core at the couple’s expense. The store provided a quote of $1,232 to complete the work, but the Dobkos declined.

‘Buyer’s remorse’

In the days that followed, the store owner paid a visit to the couple’s home to inspect the sofa, confirming it was functioning as intended and was not defective.

The owner testified that the sofa could not be returned for a refund after seven months of use. He told the court the Dobkos looked at several different couches in the store before deciding on the Kalie sofa set, suggesting their complaint stemmed not from a faulty product but from “buyer’s remorse,” the judge wrote.

The couple countered that the store misrepresented the couch and unfairly induced them to buy it.

“The evidence of the Dobkos is that the salesperson told them the Kalie sofa would hold its shape and form,” the judge wrote. “This evidence is not contradicted” by the store managers.

The court turned its attention to the sofa’s warranty, supplied by the manufacturer Stylus, which described the couch’s “Feathersoft” construction and, importantly, provided a warning to retailers.

“It is important to qualify your customers when selling a Feathersoft cushion,” the warranty advised. “Consumers should be aware of the following characteristics of a Feathersoft cushion.”

It went on to detail how “a feather cushion requires more maintenance” than a foam cushion, and “the feathers and fibre are free to shift.”

The warranty stated the cushions are meant to have a “shabby-chic” and “lived-in look,” concluding: “Fluffing and rotating the cushions frequently will be required.”

‘Solid and not floppy’

The judge found “no evidence” the Muse & Merchant salesperson knew of the manufacturer’s caution about the sofa set and therefore it was not relayed to the Dobkos when they bought it.

“The uncontradicted evidence is that the Dobkos told the salesperson what they were seeking,” the judge wrote.

“Ms. Dobko said they were seeking furniture that was solid and not floppy.”

When the Dobkos chose the Kalie sofa in the store, they did so without knowing it might lose its shape after more than an hour of use. “This is beyond the time a consumer may reasonably take to test out a sofa in a store,” the judge found.

“Put another way, there was an implied term of the contract between the parties that the sofa would hold its shape and form, and that requirement was not met.”

‘Peace of mind’

Given that the sofa was not necessarily defective, and had already been in the couple’s home for several months when the grievance began, the judge found a simple return and refund was not appropriate.

“The Dobkos’ claim is more in the nature of damages for the inconvenience and distress of having to maintain the sofa, which they did not want or expect when the sofa was purchased,” he wrote. “The evidence is clear that when the Dobkos use the sofa, they must go through the inconvenience of maintaining it.”

That inconvenience deprives the couple of “the peace of mind of not having to maintain the sofa” and warrants a remedy, the judge ruled.

“Nevertheless, the sofa itself still functions in the manner that the manufacturer intended. It is not defective, nor has it lost its value.”

The court ordered Muse & Merchant to pay the Dobkos $500 in damages, plus $75 to help cover the cost of their court fees.