2023 QCCQ 2754, 2023 QCCQ 2754

Yang c. Ji 2023 QCCQ 2754 COURT OF QUEBEC «Small Claims Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL "Civil Division" N° : 500-32-712652-207 DATE : 27 avril 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ QINGHAI YANG and YUZHOU ZHAO Plaintiff c.

LONG JI and XIA WANG Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Un inspector retained by Yang inspected the goods. He estimated that the inventory was worth $40,311.27. [ 2 ] The inventory report was signed by all the parties and included with the sale’s Agreement prepared by Me Yu. [ 3 ] Same three days later, Yang would have asked Mr. Gelinas to do a second inventory. This time, Mr.

Gelinas says that he actually inspected the goods namely the beer present in the basement, and discovered that bottles of beer totalling $9,721.99 were expired. However, Yang could return the bottles and obtain a refund of $620.20. [ 4 ] In the first inventory Mr.

Gelinas states that the only counted the inventory and not actually inspected it. [ 5 ] A second report was provided [1] for a total of $10,342.19 which is clearly a mistake, as the amount of the beer refund should have been deducted and not added on. [ 6 ] Me Yu explains that parties had in January 2020 drafted a pre-Contract of Sale written in Chinese whereby the purchase price was $12,000 plus the value of the inventory, temporarily determined at $30,000. [ 7 ] Before finalizing the transaction, Me Yu was waiting to receive the inventory by Mr.

Gelinas, which she received on February 14, 2020 and included to the sale’s Agreement. [ 8 ] The value of the inventory came to $40,311.27, which Me Yu reduced the sum of $38,311.27, in order to take into account, the expired goods. [ 9 ] Following Mr. Gelinas’s report, the sale was finalized. [ 10 ] A balance of sale of $6,000 was owed by the Plaintiffs which were paid between March and August 2020 [2] . [ 11 ] At the signing of the Deed of Sale, all keys and access code were provided by Ji to Yang. [ 12 ] Another inventory would have been prepared on February 4, 2020 by Mr. Gelinas [3] .

Me Yu is categoric that she never received such a copy of this inventory. [ 13 ] As for the adjustments, prepared by Me Yu, annex to the sale’s Agreement, Yang was to pay the sum of $1,958.99 which was surely paid by Yang to Ji but Me Yu was not involved, and she never received a waiver for this amount. [ 14 ] Ji’s Cross Claim is for $9,149.68.

[ 15 ] This amount includes the $6,000 that Ji stats represent the balance of sale that was never paid to him. [ 16 ] Ji provides a copy of the return notice from Bank of Montreal [4] dated March 3, 2020.

In this notice the first cheque of $1,000 was returned following a stop payment. [ 17 ] Therefore, Ji stats that he never cashed the remaining cheques dated from April to August 2020. [ 18 ] In addition, he claims the adjustments of $1,958.90 that was never paid, plus an alarm invoice of $200 which was insured in November 10, 2019 [5] . [ 19 ] These items were claimed by the demand letter dated March 10, 2020 [6] , however, there were never included in the adjustment sheet prepared by Me Yu, who limited the amount owed to $1,958.90 owed by Yang.

THE ANALYSES [ 20 ] The Court specifies that after the hearing, Yang provided a written testimony, as well as pictures which he wished to file in the court record. [ 21 ] The Court indicated in writing to Yang that at the hearing he wised to present these photographs, which the Court refused as they did not constitute proper evidence of expired goods.

As for the written testimony, Yang appeared in Court and had the opportunity of presenting his testimony orally. [ 22 ] The Court does not consider the written testimony or the photographs, as indicated in its email of February 22, 2023. [ 23 ] An inventory was conducted by Mr. Gelinas and accepted by both parties and included with the sale’s Agreement. [ 24 ] The fact that the second inventory was done after the sale and after the Defendant Ji had no access to the premises, does not constitute valid evidence that there was expired products. [ 25 ] The Court does not accept Mr.

Gelinas’s testimony that this first inventory whereas he lists the costs the value of the items, was simply counting the items without verifying the quality of these items. [ 26 ] No evidence was ever provided by Yang as to cigarettes or grocery being expired. [ 27 ] As the initial agreement was drafted in February 2020 and the sale was actually signed after February 14, 2020, Young had the opportunity to inspect the merchandise. No evidence was provided that cigarettes or grocery were expired.

As for Yang’s claim to obtain the reimbursement of the purchase price, no warranty was provided by Ji or in fact put into evidence, of the potential net profit to be derived from the business. [ 28 ] The Court also dismisses this portion of the claim. [ 29 ] Whereas the Court will grant the Cross Claim. [ 30 ] It appears that the $6,000 balance of sale price was never paid by Yang in fact in his claim Yang does acknowledge owing the $6,000 which he deducts from his claim. [ 31 ] The Exhibits D-2 and D-3 substantiate this portion of the Cross Claim, as well as the adjustment of $1,958,90.

According to Me Yu, this amount was not paid when she finalised the Sale Agreement and Yang never presented to the Court proof of payment of this amount. [ 32 ] No evidence was provided for the remainder of the claim neither will the Court grants a compensation of $500 for the time spent by Wang.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claim with costs in the amount of $209 representing the Defendants contestation; GRANTS in part Defendants Cross Claim; CONDEMNS the Plaintiffs to pay to the Defendants the sum of $7,958,90 with interest and additional indemnity as of November 2, 2020 the date of filing of the Cross Claim with costs in the amount of $183 representing the judicial stamp of the Cross Claim.

________________________ DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q.