Stanley Reimer Plaintiff - v. -, 2017 SKPC 002

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN CIVIL DIVISION Citation: 2017 SKPC 002 Date: January 6, 2017 File: 15-1110 Location: Prince Albert _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Stanley Reimer Plaintiff - and - Trevor Anderson Defendant Stanley Reimer For the Plaintiff Trevor Anderson For the Defendant ______________________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT S.D. SCHIEFNER , J ______________________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Defendant in these proceedings is Trevor Anderson. Mr.

Anderson is an auto mechanic and operates Anderson Autobody in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. The Plaintiff in these proceedings is Stanley Reimer. In September of 2013, Mr. Reimer entered into an agreement with Mr. Anderson to repair his son’s truck. This vehicle had previously been damaged in an accident. Mr. Anderson agreed to make it road worthy and render its mechanical condition sufficient to ensure that it would be capable of passing any applicable government safety inspections. Mr. Anderson took possession of the vehicle. He began, but did not complete, the said repairs.

The vehicle continues to remain in his possession and is neither repaired nor roadworthy. [ 2 ] Mr. Reimer brings this action to recover damages from Mr. Anderson for breach of their contract. Specifically, Mr. Reimer alleges that Mr. Anderson breached the terms of their agreement by failing to repair the vehicle within the time frame anticipated by the agreement of the parties and in the manner prescribed by their agreement.

[ 3 ] Both Mr. Reimer and Mr. Anderson were self-represented. The manner in which the parties attempted to define and prove elements of their respective cases was wanting. Nonetheless, I am satisfied that there was a contract between the parties and that Mr. Reimer’s claim is based on Mr. Anderson’s failure to honor the terms of their contract. [ 4 ] When a party to a contract fails to comply with the terms of his/her agreement then the other party - the aggrieved party - is, in law, entitled to assume that the defaulting party has repudiated (refused to honor and comply with) that agreement.

The aggrieved party is then entitled to accept that repudiation and sue for damages based on his/her “ expectation interest”. An expectation interest is generally defined in law as an award of damages sufficient to put the aggrieved party into the position that he/she would have been in had the contract been performed. [ 5 ] In the instant circumstances, Mr. Reimer is entitled to the return of the subject vehicle and damages based on reimbursement for the deposit paid to Mr.

Anderson and an amount equivalent to the incremental value that would have occurred to the vehicle had the repairs been completed in accordance with the agreement between the parties. The incremental value of the vehicle is determined based on what the vehicle would have been worth if the contract had been completed, less the original value of the damaged vehicle, less the cost of having it repaired. [ 6 ] Unfortunately, this Court faces the following evidentiary challenges: 1. I do not have good evidence (for example, an expert opinion as to value from an independent third party) of any of the following: (

a) The value of the vehicle prior to the contract being entered into; (

b) The value of the vehicle had the contract been completed; or (

c) The value of the vehicle now or as of the date of the breach. Has the vehicle appreciated in value as a result of the partial work completed by Mr. Anderson (notwithstanding the fact the vehicle having been exposed to the weather) or has the vehicle depreciated in value because it has been exposed (notwithstanding the partial work performed by Mr. Anderson)? This is important because, if the vehicle has appreciated in value, that incremental value (if any) will have to be set off against the total damages that this court may award when the truck is returned to Mr. Reimer.

On the other hand, if the vehicle has depreciated in value while in Mr. Anderson’s possession, the value of that depreciation is added to the quantum of damages. 2. While the original agreement included a completion date of December 25, 2013, I am satisfied that Mr. Reimer agreed or acquiesced to an extension of that date.

However, I do not have good evidence as to what date was ultimately agreed to by the parties for completion of the contract. [ 7 ] Notwithstanding the lack of expert evidence (i.e.: formal appraisals), each of the parties lead some evidence as to the value of the subject vehicle at various points in time. I believe that this court can fairly ascribe values based on the evidence presented by the parties. Where my determinations as to value conflict with the estimates given by either or both parties, I will explain why I prefer the value I have ascribed. [ 8 ] For the reasons that follow, I find in favour of Mr.

Reimer. By way of remedy, I award damages in the amount of $8,000.00, together with pre-judgment interest as and from September 30, 2015, and the costs incurred in filing the within claim. FACTS [ 9 ] In 2010, Terry Reimer purchased a loaded 2005 Dodge Laramie. He paid approximately $42,000.00 for the truck and drove it daily for two years. In 2012, the truck was damaged during an accident. At that point, the vehicle required extensive repairs before it could be driven again. The vehicle sat for approximately one year before Mr. Reimer made arrangements with Mr.

Anderson to repair it for his son. [ 10 ] At trial, Terry estimated the value of his truck in September of 2013, was between $6,000.00 and $9,000.00. Terry stated that he arrived at this amount based on the salvage value that could be derived from removing and selling various individual components from the truck, such as the engine, transmission, differentials, mirrors, etc. Commonly referred to as “parting the truck out”.

However, it should be noted that Terry’s estimated salvage value did not include the cost of labour to remove the various parts and ready them for sale or for the proper disposal of the balance of the vehicle.

[ 11 ] Both Terry and Mr. Reimer estimated the value of the vehicle to be approximately $20,000.00 once fully repaired. Terry testified that he felt the truck was a good vehicle and would be worth the cost of repair. This was based on his belief that the value of the truck once repaired would be worth at least as much - probably more - than its salvage value plus the estimated cost of repair. [ 12 ] Mr. Anderson operates a private auto body shop in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, and has done so for approximately 25 years. It is a small shop and most of the mechanical and auto body work is done personally by Mr.

Anderson. Mr. Reimer, who is from Pike Lake, came into contact with Mr. Anderson while attending an adjacent business in Prince Albert. He approached Mr. Anderson about repairing Terry’s truck and he was interested. [ 13 ] On or about September 5, 2013, Mr. Anderson drove to Pike Lake and personally inspected Terry’s truck. Following his inspection, Mr. Anderson estimated that the cost to repair Terry’s truck would be between $10,000.00 and $11,500.00. The parties entered into a written agreement on September 5, 2013, wherein Mr.

Anderson agreed to repair the vehicle to an extent that it was “ready to drive” and capable of “passing a vehicle inspection”. The agreement went on to identify Christmas of 2013 as the completion date. Mr. Reimer paid a $6,000.00 deposit to Mr. Anderson. [ 14 ] Mr. Anderson took possession of Terry’s truck on September 23, 2013, when he arranged for someone to haul it to Prince Albert. In the ensuing months, Mr. Anderson brought the truck into his shop, completed partial disassembly of the vehicle, and ordered a number of parts, including a new frame and a passenger door.

Repairs of the vehicle were not completed within the specified period of time. In fact, other than the partially disassembling the vehicle and ordering parts, little progress has been made toward repairing Terry’s truck and making it roadworthy. [ 15 ] Originally, Mr. Reimer acquiesced to a delay in the completion of the repairs of Terry’s truck because he wanted other vehicles repaired first. For example, Mr. Reimer also asked Mr. Anderson to repair a 2001 Dodge Ram, which required extensive body work. Mr. Anderson worked on this vehicle from September of 2013, until April of 2014. Then in October of 2014, Mr.

Reimer returned with the 2001 Dodge Ram wanting more auto body work to be completed. Then, in November of 2014, Mr. Reimer asked Mr. Anderson to repair a vehicle for his grandson. Mr. Anderson testified that he was unable to work on Terry’s truck while he was working on other vehicles for Mr. Reimer. It was Mr. Anderson’s belief that Mr. Reimer wanted these other vehicles worked on in priority to his son’s truck. When Mr. Anderson was not working on Terry’s truck, he stored it in his compound covered with a tarp. In cross- examination, Mr.

Anderson admitted that during 2014 and 2015 he also worked on other vehicles belonging to other people. [ 16 ] It should be noted that Mr. Anderson and Mr. Reimer formed a friendship during this period. [ 17 ] Mr. Anderson testified that in January of 2015, he moved Terry’s truck into the shop and started working on it. As indicated, he bought a new frame, a replacement door, and various other parts with a total value of approximately $3,100.00. In total, Mr.

Anderson testified that he worked on the truck for about 40 hours or approximately $3,000.00 in labour. [ 18 ] Unfortunately, sometime during 2015, the friendship between Mr. Anderson and Mr. Reimer and Terry deteriorated as did their contractual relationship. Terry was tired of waiting for his truck. Mr. Reimer expressed disappointment with the quality of Mr. Anderson’s work on other vehicles. All of which culminated, in Mr. Anderson becoming concerned that he was not going to get paid if he invested any more time in repairing Terry’s truck or the expense of ordering more parts.

Simply put, no further repairs were completed. Mr. Anderson moved the vehicle back out to the adjacent compound and a tarp was placed over it. [ 19 ] Terry testified that about every three months in 2015, either he or Mr. Reimer contacted Mr. Anderson to check on when the truck would be done. Ultimately seeing no progress and the relationship between the parties having broken down, Mr. Reimer retained a lawyer and on September 30, 2015, notified Mr. Anderson of his position that he had defaulted on their agreement to repair Terry’s truck. Obtaining no response, Mr.

Reimer commenced the within proceedings. [ 20 ] Terry has periodically driven by Mr. Anderson’s Auto Body Shop. The vehicle is currently being stored outside in the compound adjacent to Mr. Anderson’s shop. It is covered with a weather-worn tarp. While neither Mr. Reimer nor Terry have personally inspected the vehicle recently, they both testified as to their belief that the vehicle has experienced significant deprecation from being exposed to the weather. Mr. Anderson admitted that over time the tarp deteriorated and became ineffective at protecting Terry’s truck from the weather.

[ 21 ] Mr. Anderson estimated that the salvage value of Terry’s truck was between $2,500.00 and $5,000.00 at the time he took possession of it. Mr. Anderson also estimated that the value of the vehicle if all the repairs would have been completed would have been approximately $15,000.00 to $16,000.00 in 2015. [ 22 ] Mr. Reimer claims breach of contract and seeks damages from Mr. Anderson in the amount of $20,000.00. ANALYSIS OF CLAIM [ 23 ] The facts of the present case involve a contractual dispute that must be decided upon the meaning and

interpretation of express and implied terms of a contract between this plaintiff and this defendant. As indicated, I am satisfied that there was an agreement wherein Mr. Anderson agreed to make repairs to Mr. Reimer’s son’s vehicle. [ 24 ] Having considered the evidence presented by the parties, I find the express and implied terms of the contract between parties were as follows; on September 5, 2013, Mr. Anderson agreed to repair Terry’s truck and to do so with a prescribed period of time (expressed term); the work to be completed by Mr.

Anderson was defined by making the vehicle ready to drive and capable of passing any requisite safety inspections (express term); and Mr. Anderson agreed that all required work would be done in a good and workmanlike manner and that he would carry out the work using the ordinary amount of skill possessed by those who regularly perform automotive and auto body repair (implied term); Mr. Reimer agreed to pay Mr. Anderson for his services in an amount estimated to be between $10,000.00 and $11,500.00 (express term). [ 25 ] I also find that Mr.

Reimer either agreed or acquiesced to an extension of the stated completion date for the contract from Christmas of 2013. In light of the friendship between the parties at the time and the other vehicles that Mr. Reimer brought to Mr. Anderson for repair, I am satisfied that Mr. Reimer either specifically agreed to an extension of the completion date or acquiesced through implication. On the other hand, it is not apparent from the evidence that the parties defined a new completion date. Mr. Anderson testified that he started working on Terry’s truck in January of 2015.

At some point thereafter, he abandoned work on it. By September 30, 2015, Mr. Reimer believed that Mr. Anderson had breached their contract and issued a demand letter. [ 26 ] There is no dispute that Mr. Anderson is in breach of his contract with Mr. Reimer. The vehicle is not in a state capable of being driven and could not pass a safety inspection. Mr. Anderson admitted to not completing the agreed upon work on Terry’s truck. His stated reason for failing to do so was that he was afraid that he wouldn’t be paid. With all due respect, this is not a valid reason. Upon completion of work on Terry’s truck, Mr.

Anderson would have been entitled to rely on the provisions of The Commercial Liens Act to secure payment for the cost of parts and labour invested in Terry’s truck. In addition, he had already received a $6,000.00 deposit from Mr. Reimer. [ 27 ] Mr. Anderson repudiated the contract through omission. Simply put, Mr. Anderson failed to complete the agreed upon work to Terry’s truck in accordance with the terms of the agreement between the parties.

The only issue I must decide is when did the breach occur? [ 28 ] In civil proceedings, the plaintiff must prove his/her case and must do so on what is known as “balance of probabilities”. The onus is on Mr. Reimer to tender evidence as to the revised completion date for the repair of Terry’s truck. In the absence of reliable evidence from which I can infer or extrapolate the revised completion date, I find the date of Mr. Reimer’s demand letter to be the revised completion date; being September 30, 2015. There is no dispute that, by this date, Mr. Reimer believed that Terry’s truck should be completed.

There is also no dispute that by this date Mr. Anderson had abandoned working on the vehicle. MEASURE AND CALCULATION OF DAMAGES [ 29 ] As indicated, the basic remedy for breach of contract is that the plaintiff be compensated for the loss caused by the breach. The compensation principle protects the “expectation interest” of the injured party by determining compensation based on what the injured party anticipated or expected to receive had the contract been fulfilled. [ 30 ] As a starting proposition, Mr. Reimer is entitled to the return of the subject vehicle. Mr.

Anderson shall make the subject vehicle available for pick up by Mr. Reimer within 30 days.

[ 31 ] In addition, Mr. Reimer is entitled to reimbursement for the money paid to Mr. Anderson in the amount of $6,000.00, together with prejudgment interest as and from September 30, 2015. While Mr. Anderson testified that he purchased parts for the vehicle, there is no evidence that any of these parts were used in the repair of the vehicle or, if they were, that doing so increased its value. Similarly, there is no evidence that the labour expended by Mr. Anderson on the subject vehicle improved its condition or increased its value.

To the contrary, the evidence suggests that most of the labour was directed toward disassembling the vehicle for the purpose of determining what parts to order. Simply put, there is no evidence that Mr. Reimer gained any benefit at all from the $6,000.00 he paid to Mr. Anderson. [ 32 ] Finally, in addition to the return of the vehicle and refund of the deposit, Mr. Reimer is entitled to damages based on his expectation interest under the contract. To calculate this amount, I am required to make a number of determinations. What was the value of the subject vehicle when Mr.

Anderson took possession of it? [ 33 ] Mr. Reimer estimated the value of the subject vehicle to be worth approximately $9,000.00 when Mr. Anderson took possession of it in September of 2013. Terry estimated the value of the vehicle to be between $6,000.00 and $9,000.00. Mr. Anderson, on the other hand, estimated that the value of the vehicle at that time would have been between $2,500.00 and $5,000.00.

It was apparent to me that the lower estimate was based on each of the parties’ respective salvage values for the vehicle and the upper estimate based on the value of the vehicle if repaired less cost of repair. [ 34 ] For purposes of calculating Mr. Reimer’s expectation interest, the appropriate method of determining the value of the subject vehicle prior to the commencement of repairs is its salvage value. To utilize the latter values, would nullify the calculation of damages. [ 35 ] I find that the salvage value of the subject vehicle in September of 2013, to be $4,000.00.

While Terry estimated a higher value, he did not include the cost of labour to remove the parts, or the cost of transporting and disposing of the balance of the vehicle. Mr. Anderson, on the other hand, provided an estimate based on the cost of his shop completing the requisite work. The value I have determined represents an interpolation between the estimates of the respective parties. What would the value of the vehicle had been had the contract been completed? [ 36 ] Mr. Reimer estimated the value of the subject vehicle after completion of the anticipated repairs to be approximately $20,000.00. Mr.

Reimer on the other hand estimated the value to be between $15,000.00 and $16,000.00. Recognizing that a range of values could reasonably be ascribed to the estimated value of subject vehicle once repaired, it is reasonable to assume that Mr. Reimer’s estimate is on the high end of that range, while Mr. Anderson’s estimated value tends to be on the low side. Practicability dictates that I estimate the value and do so by means of interpolation. I find the subject vehicle would have been worth $17,500.00. [ 37 ] In arriving at this value, I note that Mr.

Reimer agreed or acquiesced to an extension of the completion date. By September of 2015, the vehicle would have been worth less than originally thought in 2013 because it is now an older vehicle. What is the value of the vehicle now? [ 38 ] As indicated, I need to also establish the value of the vehicle now. Has the vehicle appreciated in value as a result of the partial work completed by Mr. Anderson (notwithstanding the fact the vehicle having been exposed to the weather) or has the vehicle depreciated in value because it has been exposed (notwithstanding the partial work performed by Mr. Anderson)?

As indicated, this is important because, if the vehicle has appreciated in value, that incremental value (if any) will have to be set off against the total damages that this court may award when the truck is returned to Mr. Reimer. On the other hand, if the vehicle has depreciated in value while in Mr. Anderson’s possession, the value of that depreciation is added to the quantum of damages if that depreciation was the result of Mr. Anderson’s negligence. [ 39 ] As indicated, the onus is on Mr. Reimer to prove his damages.

If the salvage value of the subject vehicle has depreciated, I have no evidence upon which I can determine or infer the quantum of such depreciation. Conversely, I have no evidence from Mr. Anderson upon which I can infer that the value of the vehicle has appreciated as a result of the parts ordered and work performed by Mr.

Anderson. [ 40 ] Absent an evidentiary base to determine otherwise, I infer that the salvage value of the subject vehicle is unchanged from its 2013 value of $4,000.00. What would the total cost to repair the subject vehicle have been ? [ 41 ] The agreement estimated the costs of repair to be between $10,000.00 and $11,500.00. Absent evidence to the contrary, I infer that the cost of repair would have been the later number.

On the other hand, absent evidence to the contrary, I infer that the estimated cost was inclusive of any applicable Goods and Services Taxes (GST). [ 42 ] Having determined these values, I find that Mr. Reimer’s expected the repairs of the subject vehicle would increase its value by $2,000.00. The value is calculated by taking the estimated value of the subject vehicle once repaired of $17,500.00 and deducting both the cost of repair of $11,500.00 and the original value of the vehicle of $4,000.00. In other words, by hiring Mr. Anderson and investing $11,500.00 in repairs, Mr.

Reimer anticipated increasing the value of the subject vehicle by an amount of $2,000.00. That is his expectation interest; the value he reasonably anticipated would accrue from his contract with Mr. Anderson. [ 43 ] The total award of damages for breach of contract is $8,000.00, which amount includes the thrown away repair costs paid to Mr. Anderson in the amount of $6,000.00 and Mr. Reimer’s expectation interest in the amount of $2,000.00. CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS [ 44 ] In conclusion, judgment is awarded in favour of Mr. Reimer against Mr. Anderson in the total amount of $8,325.60.

The judgment includes damages for breach of contract in the amount of $8,000.00, together with pre-judgment interest within the meaning of The Prejudgment Interest Act as and from September 30, 2015, being the sum of $225.60, as well as cost Mr. Reimer incurred in commencing this action in the amount of $100.00. Dated at the City of Prince Albert, in the Province of Saskatchewan, this 6 th day of January, 2017. ______________________________ S.D. Schiefner, J