2018 QCCQ 1873, 2018 QCCQ 1873

Jasmin c. Mr. Autozone Inc. 2018 QCCQ 1873 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-154066-163 DATE: February 27, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE ARMANDO AZNAR, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ MARK ANTHONY JASMIN Plaintiff v. MR. AUTOZONE INC.

AND MASSIMO RUCCI Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff is claiming from Defendants the sum of $12,643.34 following the purchase by him, on September 5 th , 2014, of a 2009 Nissan Versa. [ 2 ] Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, a used car dealer, sold him the said car without disclosing the fact that it had been previously involved in a serious car accident in January 2011. [ 3 ] Plaintiff alleges that, at the time of the sale, Defendant Rucci, representative of Defendant Mr.

Autozone Inc. (Autozone), only disclosed the fact that the car had been involved in a minor accident. [ 4 ] According to Plaintiff, had he been informed of the seriousness of the accident that occurred in January 2011, he would not have purchased the car for which he alleges to have paid $11,461.00. [ 5 ] Plaintiff claims reimbursement of the sum of $11,461.00 paid by him plus an amount of $774.74 in repairs that he alleges to have incurred further to the purchase of the car. [ 6 ] Defendants contest Plaintiff’s demand. In the contestation that they have filed into the Court record, they state the following: “

(1) La defenderesse nie avec véhémence qu’elle n’a pas remis copie du carproof au demandeur lors de la vente (voir contrat de vente avec mention “Accidenté et réparé”; carproof reçu);

(2) La défenderesse réitère qu’elle a dénoncé tous les frais pertinents au demandeur afin que ce dernier puisse acheter le vehicule de façon claire et pertinents quant à l’état et la valeur du vehicule; (3) la défenderesse ajoute que les dommages réclamés ne son pas dus car indirect non causal et grossièrement réclamés. (sic) [ 7 ] Furthermore, Defendants have filed a cross-demand whereby they are claiming from Plaintiff an amount of $1,461.14 for abusive proceedings, reimbursement of lawyer fees and for loss of profit. [ 8 ] At the hearing, Plaintiff testified that he purchased the car from Defendant Autozone after having negotiated the sale with Defendant Rucci. [ 9 ] Plaintiff stated that he saw that the car was on sale through “ad” published on Kijiji. [ 10 ] In fact, the original sale was to be completed between Defendant Autozone and Plaintiff’s father but as the latter’s credit was not acceptable by the bank, Plaintiff ended up purchasing the car for himself. [ 11 ] When the proposed sale was negotiated with his father, Plaintiff was present and participated fully in the said negotiation.

According to him, at that time, Defendant Rucci never disclosed the fact that the car had been involved in a serious accident in January 2011. [ 12 ] In fact, according to Plaintiff, Defendant Rucci solely informed him that a minor accident had occurred for which the appropriate repairs had been performed.

[ 13 ] The car purchased by Plaintiff was a Nissan Versa 2009 with 59,484 km. at the time of the sale. The sale price was $8,042.50 taxes included plus the costs of an extended warranty ($1,324.00 + taxes) and additional costs for a grand total of $10,248.87 (exhibit D- 2). [ 14 ] At the time of the sale contract, Plaintiff does not recall having asked Defendant Rucci for a “carproof claims report” but he admits that he was advised that the car had been involved in a “minor accident” in January 2011.

According to him, no carproof claims report was given to him at that time. [ 15 ] On September 5 th , 2014, Plaintiff took possession of the car and drove it afterwards without interruption and without any significant problems until August 2016. [ 16 ] At that time, Plaintiff testified that he tried to trade-in the car to another dealer in order to buy a new one. He was then informed by the said dealer that the car could not be traded in because it had been involved in a serious accident on January 26, 2011.

He gave Plaintiff a carproof claims report (Exhibit P-6) dated August 20, 2016. [ 17 ] Following the above incident, Plaintiff testified that he called Defendant Rucci who then asked him to bring the car into the dealership to have it verified. [ 18 ] According to Plaintiff, when Defendant Rucci met with him, he insisted that he had given him the carproof claims report dated August 27, 2014 (Exhibit D-3) which Plaintiff denies vehemently having received. [ 19 ] Defendant Rucci then declared that he would take back the car if Plaintiff accepted a reduction of the purchase price considering that he had been using the car for two years.

Plaintiff refused this offer. [ 20 ] On August 29, 2016, Plaintiff sent Defendants a “Formal notice” (Exhibit P-8) asking for an amount of $12,668.00 in reimbursement of the price of the purchased car, the interest paid on the purchase loan and the reimbursement of mechanical repairs incurred. [ 21 ] On August 31, 2016, Defendants’ attorney replied to Plaintiff stating precisely why they contested his claim (Exhibit P-8). [ 22 ] The evidence has revealed that Plaintiff has kept the car purchased by him and has been using it until today. [ 23 ] Defendant Rucci, president of Defendant Autozone, testified at trial. [ 24 ] According to Mr.

Rucci, before buying the car, Plaintiff was specifically advised by him that it had been involved in an accident in January 2011. [ 25 ] More particularly, the sale contract signed by Plaintiff (Exhibit D-2) clearly states the following: “Accidenté et réparé : carproof reçu”. [ 26 ] Defendant Rucci also stated that the carproof claims report (Exhibit D-3) dated August 27, 2014, was remitted to Plaintiff by him on September 5 th , 2014, the day the sale contract was signed. The carproof claims report (Exhibit D-3) in question appears to have been signed by Plaintiff on every page.

Although he denies that it is his signature, in the opinion of the Court, the similarity between his signature on the sale contract and his signature on the carproof claims report (Exhibit D-3) is striking. [ 27 ] Furthermore, considering that Defendants did obtain the carproof claims report on August 27, 2014 and that its existence is mentioned in the sale contract (Exhibit D-2, it appears probable that a copy of the said report was in fact given to Plaintiff on September 5 th , 2014.

Consequently, when he purchased the car, he was, in all probability, informed of the seriousness of the accident which had occurred on January 26, 2011. [ 28 ] This being said, after consideration of the evidence adduced at trial, testimonial and documentary, the Court concludes that Plaintiff was not misinformed or misled by Defendants regarding the accident status of the car he purchased. [ 29 ] Furthermore, Plaintiff, who has continued to use the car until today, has not established that, at the time of the sale, the car was worth less than the amount he paid for it in view of its condition at that time. [ 30 ] In the opinion of the Court, Plaintiff has not established that his case is well founded in fact and in law and it is therefore dismissed. [ 31 ] As concerns Defendant’s cross-demand in the amount of $1,461,14 $, for damages resulting from the institution of abusive proceedings on the part of Plaintiff and for loss of profits, for the following reasons, it is dismissed. [ 32 ] To begin with, no evidence establishing the existence of any loss of profit resulting from Plaintiff’s alleged abusive proceedings has been presented to the court. [ 33 ] Furthermore, although Plaintiff’s demand is ill founded in fact and in law, in the opinion of the Court, in view of the particular circumstances of the present case, said proceedings cannot be qualified to be abusive.

Thus, the cross-demand is dismissed. WHEREFORE, FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE COURT : DISMISSES Plaintiff’s demand, with judicial costs in the amount of $300.00; DISMISSES Defendant’s cross-demand, without judicial costs.

__________________________________ ARMANDO AZNAR, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: February 19, 2018