When the Johnsons bought flooring from Primco they informed the salesman, Lee, that they had young children and needed a product that would resist scratching, be durable, and be pleasing to the eye. He recommended the product ultimately purchased, stating it would meet or exceed those requirements. In fact, the floor was seriously scratched when furniture was moved on it. The Johnsons complained and, when the supplier and manufacturer would do nothing, brought this action. Question: Assuming there was a restrictive covenant included prohibiting recovery for this type of damage, what would be the likelihood of success of this action? Note that this action was brought in Saskatchewan where there is a Sale of Goods Act and a Consumer Protection Act in place