2012 QCCQ 2359, 2012 QCCQ 2359

RBA Sales Agency Inc. c. 9032-4369 Québec inc. (Glorious Auto) 2012 QCCQ 2359 COURT OF QUÉBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL Civil Division No: 500-32-125732-109 DATE: March 30, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE HENRI RICHARD, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ R.B.A. SALES AGENCY INC. Plaintiff v. 9032-4369 QUÉBEC INC. ("Glorious Auto") and PIE IX DODGE CHRYSLER 2000 INC.

Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] R.B.A.

Sales Agency inc. (hereinafter " RBA ") claims from 9032-4369 Québec inc. (hereinafter " Glorious Auto ") and Pie- IX Dodge Chrysler 2000 inc. (hereinafter " Pie-IX ") an amount of $789 allegedly overpaid for the purchase of a car, and an amount of $20.21 for postal fees. [ 2 ] In its contestation, Glorious Auto alleges that the sale never took place and the deposit received by RBA was duly returned. [ 3 ] On its part, Pie-IX denies having any contractual or legal relationship with Glorious Auto and refers to an "automobile sale contract" intervened with RBA on August 27, 2010.

Question in dispute [ 4 ] Did Glorious Auto or Pie-IX commit any fault towards RBA regarding the sale price of the car sold on August 27, 2010 ? The facts and analysis [ 5 ] Glorious Auto is acting as a broker in car sales. [ 6 ] On June 15, 2010, a sale contract intervenes between RBA as the "Purchaser" and Glorious Auto as the "Vendor". [ 7 ] The total sale price is $23,957.71 and a deposit of $2,732.61 is remitted. [ 8 ] In fact, the car purchased by RBA from Glorious Auto belongs to Pie-IX.

This being the case, Glorious Auto transfers the contract with RBA to Pie-IX, in order to complete the sale. [ 9 ] On August 27, 2010, an automobile sale contract is signed between RBA and Pie-IX for the same car sold by Glorious Auto. However, the sale price is established at $24,746.71.

The difference of 789 $ with Glorious Auto's previous contract and the postal fees of $20.21 are claimed in the present instance. [ 10 ] The only plausible and preponderant explanation of the said difference resides in an error made by Glorious Auto by forgetting to consider an accessory, namely the rear air conditioning system. [ 11 ] When RBA is directed to Pie-IX to close the deal, its representative, Ms Eva Dubman, is informed of the said difference to be paid in order to finalize the sale contract.

[ 12 ] The undisputed evidence shows that the deposit remitted by RBA to Glorious Auto is transferred to Pie-IX. [ 13 ] The Court cannot understand why this case was pleaded by Glorious Auto. It is evident that a mistake occurred from Glorious Auto in the sale price agreed upon in the contract intervened with RBA.

Therefore, Glorious Auto must bear the responsibility of said mistake and indemnify RBA for the amount of $789 plus the postal fees. [ 14 ] As for Pie-IX, no evidence shows any fault committed by any of its representative towards RBA. [ 15 ] Given all of the above, the Court finds that RBA's claim is well founded only towards Glorious Auto. THEREFORE, the Court: GRANTS R.B.A. Sales Agency inc.'s claim against 9032-4369 Québec inc.; CONDEMNS 9032-4369 Québec inc. to pay to R.B.A. Sales Agency inc. the amount of $809.21 with interest at the annual rate of 5 % and the additional indemnity provided for under

Article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec , as from October 13, 2010, plus the judicial costs of $118; DISMISSES R.B.A. Sales Agency inc.'s claim against Pie-IX Dodge Chrysler 2000 inc.; CONDEMNS R.B.A. Sales Agency inc. to pay to Pie-IX Dodge Chrysler 2000 inc. the amount of $105 as judicial costs. __________________________________ Henri Richard, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: March 19, 2012