Chan v. Best Buy Canada Ltd. Date:, 2015 BCPC 161

Citation: Chan v. Best Buy Canada Ltd. Date: 20150330 2015 BCPC 0161 File No: 14-49964 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Small Claims) BETWEEN: DEREK CHAN CLAIMANT AND: BEST BUY CANADA LTD./MAGASINS BEST BUY LYEE DEFENDANT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF HIS WORSHIP L.A. KAHN

Appearing on their own behalf: D. Chan Counsel for the Defendant: Lindsey LeClair Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: March 11, 2015 Date of Judgment: March 30, 2015 [ 1 ] This claim concerns whether or not the Defendant misrepresented that coverage for “theft” was included in an extended warranty (“warranty”) that the Claimant purchased from the Defendant at the time he purchased a Microsoft Surface tablet (“tablet”). [ 2 ] The facts are, as follows: (

a) The Claimant purchased the tablet from the Defendant on May 26, 2014. (

b) The Claimant purchased the warranty which was approximately $15 per month at the same time he purchased the tablet. (

b) Subsequently, the tablet was damaged and the Defendant provided a “replacement” tablet for the Claimant. (

c) In August 2014, the Defendant lost the tablet, following which the Claimant made a claim for a replacement pursuant to the warranty. [ 3 ] The Claimant says that he was not provided with a copy of the warranty at the time of sale, and that Mr. Manlunas told him that theft was covered, which is the main reason why he purchased the warranty. [ 4 ] The Claimant asserts that he is entitled to a refund for the tablet under the warranty. The Defendant denied the claim because the warranty does not cover theft. [ 5 ] Mr. Manlunas testified that he has been working at Best Buy since June 2013 primarily in sales.

He does not recall the specific transaction with the Claimant. [ 6 ] Mr. Manlunas explained that he sells the warranty regularly, does not receive a commission for selling it, and that he has been trained about the coverage. He determines the customer’s intended use for a product, whether or not they are interested in a warranty, and tries to narrow down a specific plan for the customer. If a plan is chosen, there is a procedure to input information into the computer terminal at the point of sale and the customer is required to answer several questions on the computer. Once that has been completed, Mr.

Manlunas testified that he staples a copy of the warranty brochure on the sales receipt. [ 7 ] Mr. Manlunas testified that he explains the plan coverage to the customer and, in the process of answering the questions on the computer, the customer accepts or declines the coverage. As is his usual practice, he testified that he did not tell the Claimant that there was coverage for theft or if the product was lost. [ 8 ] Under cross-examination, Mr.

Manlunas testified that he explains exclusions to the customer when asked specific questions, but does not necessarily discuss the exclusions as part of the explanation. [ 9 ] I framed the issue as to whether or not the Claimant was told by Mr. Manlunas if theft or losing the product was covered. [ 10 ] The Claimant was a regular customer at Best Buy. [ 11 ] The Claimant made a “damage” claim for the tablet, which was handled by Vishal Gill, who also testified. There was no evidence led by the Claimant, nor was Mr.

Gill cross-examined that the warranty had not been provided to the Claimant. [ 12 ] I am not prepared to conclude that Mr. Manlunas misrepresented the coverage for the extended warranty, nor did he mislead the Claimant. I do not suggest that the Claimant is not truthful. However, I am not satisfied that his recollection of the events should be preferred to that of the usual business practices as explained to me by Mr. Manlunas. [ 13 ] Accordingly, the claim is dismissed. [ 14 ] Each party shall bear their own costs. __________________________ Lawrence A. Kahn Adjudicator