2017 QCCQ 3576, 2017 QCCQ 3576

Parkinson c. Samsung Electronic Canada Inc. 2017 QCCQ 3576 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-151641-166 DATE: March 23, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE DAVID L. CAMERON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ GARNET PARKINSON Plaintiff v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONIC CANADA INC.

Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiff, Mr.

Garnet Parkinson, the purchaser of a Samsung television, sues the manufacturer, the Defendant Samsung Electronic Canada Inc. (“Samsung”), when the television stopped working after approximately four years of use. [ 2 ] His claim consists of the costs he spent for inspection, parts and labour totalling $ 821.46 along with damages for trouble and inconvenience in the amount of $ 1,158.72, for a total of $ 2,000. [ 3 ] In its written Contestation, Samsung denies the claim asserting that Mr. Parkinson did not provide proof of purchase.

It conditioned its offer to reimburse replacement parts on satisfactory proof of purchase. [ 4 ] Samsung however denies that any loss was suffered, alleges that the Plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by properly responding to Samsung’s communications and, finally in the alternative requests that the Plaintiff’s damages be limited to reflect the fact that he used the television for four years. [ 5 ] The Plaintiff failed to attend the hearing and the case proceeded by default. ISSUES [ 6 ] The Court must answer the following questions : 1.

Did Samsung fail to respect its warranties as a manufacturer toward a purchaser? 2. Was Samsung in default? 3. If so, what is the value of the reduction of price or damages that should be awarded to the Plaintiff?

FACTS [ 7 ] Although the Plaintiff did not attend the hearing, Samsung’s representative very candidly admitted to the Court that Samsung did eventually receive satisfactory proof of purchase (D-1), a sales invoice dated September 16, 2011. [ 8 ] The sales invoice, which also includes accessories to the screen, shows a total price of $ 1,330.49 of which $ 808.87 is the price of the screen, taxes and services included.

The accessories are not specifically designed for this screen, and can be used with other screens of the same size. [ 9 ] Samsung’s representative also explained to the Court that, initially, Samsung’s call center had trouble ascertaining if Mr. Parkinson was in fact the purchaser but, when it did have this evidence, Samsung denied responsibility alleging that the manufacturer’s one-year warranty had expired. [ 10 ] It was only after this denial of liability that Mr. Parkinson expended the cost of having the television repaired.

[ 11 ] Mr. Parkinson spent approximately the value of the screen when he had it repaired for a total of $ 821.46. Presumably, at that point, the television would be such that it could be used for the normal life span of a similar television. [ 12 ] Samsung’s representative, in response to a question put to him by the Court, stated that the probable life span of a television of this type is ten years. [ 13 ] He therefore asserted that the Court should consider Mr.

Parkinson’s prejudice to be the loss of the remainder of the useful life of the television after he had used it for several years not an amount based on its initial cost or the costs of repair, which are equal to replacement cost. ANALYSIS Warranty and default [ 14 ] The Court will answer the first two questions together. [ 15 ] When Samsung denied the consumer’s request to pay for the repairs, it was refusing to execute its obligation of warranty.

Although the one-year conventional warranty may have expired, as a manufacturer, Samsung owed the warranty of durability set out at paragraph 38 of the Consumer Protection Act [1] : WARRANTIES 38. Goods forming the object of a contract must be durable in normal use for a reasonable length of time, having regard to their price, the terms of the contract and the conditions of their use. [ 16 ] This refusal to execute its obligations under the warranty put Samsung in default.

Quantum [ 17 ] What is the value of the reduction of price or damages to be awarded? [ 18 ] By Samsung’s own admission, this type of television has a useful life of approximately ten years. Mr. Parkinson only got four years of use before he had the television rebuilt at a cost similar to its initial value. Thus, Mr.

Parkinson should be entitled to a reduction of price equal to 60% of that value. [ 19 ] The representative argued for 55% but approximately four years had gone by, not four and one-half years, between the date of purchase, September 6, 2011, and the date of complaint about the product not functioning well, September 11, 2015. The Court will award 60% of the repair costs: $ 492.87. [ 20 ] The Court will not award anything by way of trouble and inconvenience. Mr.

Parkinson having not attended the trial to provide evidence of this. [ 21 ] He had been made aware of the trial date through the Court’s sending of a notice and also because he received a letter from Samsung dated March 6, 2017 sent as part of an email communication of March 10, 2017. In the letter, Samsung states its willingness to settle the claim “before our trial scheduled on March 13, 2017” . [ 22 ] Having received the letter, Mr.

Parkinson would be hard-pressed to establish that he was not informed of the trial date. [ 23 ] Finally, since both parties were partially successful in the outcome, there will be no award as to costs. BY THESE REASONS, THE COURT: CONDEMNS Defendant Samsung Electronic Canada Inc. to pay the Plaintiff the amount of $ 492.87, with interest at the legal rate plus the additional indemnity provided at

Section 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec , calculated from March 3, 2016; WITH each party paying its costs. __________________________________ DAVID L. CAMERON, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: March 13, 2017