Arbutus v. Taylor Date:, 2014 BCPC 121

Citation: Arbutus v. Taylor Date: 20140505 2014 BCPC 0121 File No: 13-46590 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: ARBUTUS TREE SERVICE LTD. CLAIMANT AND: ALISON J. TAYLOR DEFENDANT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF HIS WORSHIP BRIAN J. WALLACE Appearing for the Claimant: Norm Oberson, Director Appearing on their own behalf: A. Taylor Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: March 19, 2014 Date of Judgment: May 5, 2014

[ 1 ] The Claimant seeks payment of $2,523, being the balance on an invoice for services it provided to the Defendant to remove a fallen willow tree and blackberry bushes, and to prune a hemlock tree and cedar hedges, plus contract interest of $885.88 and filing and service fees. [ 2 ] Mr. Oberson, director of the Claimant says that on November 26, 2011, he estimated the cost of the work at $2,845.20 including HST. The Defendant asked the Claimant to do the work, which it did. [ 3 ] The Claimant did work on November 30, and December 1, 2011, February 10, 16, & 21 2012.

The Claimant says the estimate was just that and not an offer to do the work for a fixed price. It charged for the work done on November 30, 2011 as estimated. However, it says that the work performed in 2012 was “additional work” and charged additionally for it. In the end, in March, the Claimant invoiced the Defendant $5,296.20. [ 4 ] The Defendant says that the estimate was an offer to perform the work described for $2,854.20, and she accepted it.

She says that she had to contact the Claimant on several occasions to get the job completed, that all the work done in 2012 was part of the contract, that the work was done completely, and that the extra time taken resulted from several short visits and the use of single inexperienced workers rather than crews. [ 5 ] On March 27, 2012 the Defendant paid $2,773.20.

Paying an amount less than the estimate is consistent with the evidence that a permit priced into the estimate was neither required nor obtained. [ 6 ] The estimate is in writing and describes the work and charges as follows: Prioritize Client will point out Activity

(1) Remove Fallen Willow – push stump back in hole (or grind extra 320)

(2) Hemlock – Ivy off & minor crown cleaning

(3) Cedar hedge – trim inside +top + outside Blueberry

(4) Time permitting X - trim laurel 1 day 4 men $2450.00 Permit $61.00 Obtain Permit $35.00 Sub Total $2546.00 HST $298.20 Total $2854.20 [ 7 ] In my view the estimate is an offer to perform the work described for the price quoted. That is what the Defendant thought she was agreeing to and that

interpretation is supported by the words “Time Permitting” in relation to “(4) trim laurel”. I infer from “Time Permitting” for item (4) that the Claimant intended to be bound to complete items (1), (2) & (3) for the price quoted. [ 8 ] The Claim is dismissed. ____________________ Brian J. Wallace, Q.C. Adjudicator