2015 QCCQ 8593, 2015 QCCQ 8593

Broerman c. Nixon 2015 QCCQ 8593 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF PONTIAC LOCALITY OF CAMPBELL’S BAY Civil Division N° : 555-32-000009-148 DATE : September 25, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE JEAN FAULLEM, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ CHARLES BROERMAN Plaintiff v.

DENIS NIXON AND MARY ANN HORNER NIXON Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JF 1075 JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The plaintiff is claiming from the defendants $1728.22 in damages resulting from misrepresentation made in connection with the sale of a used vehicle. [ 2 ] The Court must decide if the plaintiff is entitled to the compensation he is claiming. [ 3 ] On March 13, 2014, the plaintiff personally purchased a 1991 Ford F-150 truck from the defendant Nixon for the sum of $1600. [ 4 ] It should be noted that the plaintiff filed two receipts in the Court record to confirm the purchase of the vehicle.

He explained that the defendant Nixon's spouse, defendant Horner Nixon, gave him an initial receipt acknowledging the sum of $500 at the time of the purchase. The receipt mentioned that the vehicle was ready for inspection, and it was signed by the defendant Nixon, who was absent at the time. [ 5 ] Since the applicant paid $1600 to purchase the vehicle, he requested a second receipt from the defendant Horner Nixon, to indicate the actual sum paid for the vehicle. As such, the plaintiff received a second receipt, this time indicating the correct sale price.

The second receipt was signed by the defendant Horner Nixon. [ 6 ] Regardless, the receipt signed by the defendant Nixon indicated that the vehicle was "READY FOR SAFETY". [ 7 ] However, since the truck came from Ontario and was no longer registered there, the plaintiff had to obtain a mechanical compliance certificate issued by a mechanic mandated by the Société d’assurance automobile du Québec ( SAAQ ) before a registration certificate could be issued in Québec with respect to the vehicle. [ 8 ] The certificate of mechanical inspection issued by the mechanic mandated by the SAAQ noted several defects, which had to be repaired before a registration certificate could be issued in Québec. [ 9 ] The evidence established that it would cost approximately $2500 to repair the vehicle.

[ 10 ] Given the vehicle purchase price, the plaintiff is requesting the reimbursement of the truck sale price ($1600), the inspection fees ($109.22), the temporary registration fees to perform the inspection ($8.50), as well as the expenses incurred to deliver the formal notice ($10.50), for a total of $1728.22. [ 11 ] Upon learning that the vehicle failed the SAAQ's inspection, the defendant Nixon suggested that the plaintiff bring the vehicle to his mechanic, namely Chris Case, for an inspection. [ 12 ] In his written contestation, the defendant Nixon confirmed that he offered the plaintiff to cover all the repair costs so that the latter could obtain the SAAQ certificate. [ 13 ] In his written statement filed by the plaintiff in the Court record on June 11, 2015, Chris Case, the defendant Nixon's mechanic, confirmed that all the repairs requested pursuant to the inspection by the mechanic mandated by the SAAQ were indeed necessary. [ 14 ] In these circumstances, the Court finds that, considering the disproportion between the vehicle repair costs and its purchase price, it is more appropriate to cancel the contract of sale and to restore the parties to their original condition. [ 15 ]

Article 1422 of the Civil Code of Québec ( CCQ ) stipulates that when a contract is cancelled, each party is bound to restore to the other the prestations received under the contract. [ 16 ] Thus, on the one hand, the defendant Nixon must reimburse the sum of $1600 to the plaintiff for the purchase of the Ford F-150 truck. [ 17 ] On the other hand, the plaintiff must deliver the vehicle to the defendant Nixon as soon as he receives the totality of the sums he is owed. [ 18 ] Moreover, the plaintiff is entitled to additional compensation in the amount of $128.22 for expenses incurred to obtain the temporary registration of the vehicle, for its inspection, as well as for the delivery of the formal notice. [ 19 ] There is no need to sentence the defendant Horner Nixon to pay the aforementioned expenses since the evidence established that she was not the owner of the truck, that she did not make misrepresentations to the plaintiff, and that she agreed to sign a second receipt indicating the actual amount paid for the purchase of the vehicle as soon as the plaintiff requested it. [ 20 ] THEREFORE, THE COURT: [ 21 ] CANCELS the contract of sale for the 1991 Ford F-150 truck purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant Nixon on March 13, 2014; [ 22 ] CONDEMNS the defendant Nixon to pay the sum of $1600 to the plaintiff as reimbursement of the sale price, which sum bears interest at the legal rate, plus the additional indemnity provided for under

article 1619 CCQ as of March 13, 2014, the date of sale; [ 23 ] CONDEMNS the defendant Nixon to pay the sum of $128.22 to the plaintiff as damages, plus interest at the legal rate and the additional indemnity provided for under

article 1619 CCQ as of April 3, 2014, the deadline specified in the formal notice; [ 24 ] CONDEMNS the defendant Nixon to pay the plaintiff legal costs in the amount of $106; [ 25 ] ORDERS the plaintiff to deliver the vehicle to the defendant Nixon in conjunction with the payment of all the sums the latter owes him under this judgment. __________________________________ JEAN FAULLEM J.C.Q. Date of hearing: July 6, 2015