2021 QCCQ 13466, 2021 QCCQ 13466

Pièces de tracteur Ron Mackey c. Ferme J.A. Coates 2021 QCCQ 13466 COURT OF QUÉBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF SAINT-FRANÇOIS TOWN OF SHERBROOKE Civil Division No: 450-32-020473-203 DATE: December 20, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE SOPHIE LAPIERRE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ PIÈCES DE TRACTEUR RON MACKEY , 375, chemin de la Rivière, St-François-Xavier-de- Brompton (Québec) J0B 2V0 Plaintiff v. FERME J.A.

COATES s.e.n.c. , 82, route 212 Est, La Patrie (Québec) J0B 1Y0 Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Pièces de tracteur Ron Mackey (Pièces Mackey), represented by Mr. Ron Mackey, claims $10,138.19 as a payment for the repairs performed on a tractor owned by Ferme J.A. Coates s.e.n.c. (Ferme). [ 2 ] Ferme, represented by Mr. Jimmy Coates, states having already paid $1,000 for the repairs. Ferme offers to pay $1,299.50 more.

As for the balance, Ferme pleads that it did not authorize most of the repairs and that Pièces Mackey did not submit a preliminary estimate for the cost of the repairs. [ 3 ] At the hearing, the Court explained to Mr. Makcay and Mr. Coates that they appeared to be men who acted in good faith, and that the evidence they both offered was insufficient to support their entire respective pretentions.

Invited by the Court to try to settle the matter between themselves, they did not reach an agreement. [ 4 ] Here is what the Court considers established by sufficient evidence. [ 5 ] At first, the parties agreed that the tractor needed its clutch to be repaired at the cost of $ 2,000.00. [ 6 ] When the tractor was brought to Mr. Mackey, he opened it. He and Mr. Coates saw there was much more damage to the clutch than anticipated. They agreed on a new price, which was $ 3,500.00 plus taxes ($ 4,024.13). [ 7 ] In doing so, the parties concluded a contract of enterprise [1] .

The price was estimated for the clutch and agreed upon. Ferme is bond to pay that price. Since Ferme only paid $ 1,000.00, it still owes $ 3,024.13 for the clutch. [ 8 ] Subsequently, Ferme asked Pièces Mackay to repair the front axle. That implied some work from a machine shop in Montreal but Ferme refused to pay for that. Pièces Mackay charged $ 260 for what was paid to a local machine shop [2] .

Ferme doesn't have to pay for this item because it did not authorize Pièces Mackay to incur such a fee, and because Pièces Mackay was not able to repair the front axle in the end [3] . [ 9 ] As for other repairs, the evidence is not clear as to what was asked by Ferme nor as what was really done. [ 10 ] First, the starter was changed for a used one without Ferme’s authorization [4] . [ 11 ] Second, Mr. Mackay testifies that Mr. Coates asked him to change all seals and straps and perform a thorough tune-up of the tractor. On the other hand, Mr.

Coates testifies that he needed his tractor pronto because it was left on Mr. Mackay’s premises for too

long. He simply asked for the tractor back, in a proper working condition. [ 12 ] The Court concludes that Ferme asked Pièces Mackay to perform a tune-up of the tractor. Some work was actually done, but the evidence is insufficient to determine what is or is not related to the tune-up. In such circumstances, the Court uses its discretion and estimates the price for the tune-up. [ 13 ] Putting aside what is related to the clutch, the front axle and the starter, the invoice shows approximately $ 4,900 for parts and approximately $ 2,000 for labor.

The Court estimates the price for the tune-up at $ 3,000.00. [ 14 ] Furthermore, Ferme submits that Pièces Mackay had an obligation to give a written estimate of the cost for the tune-up, according to the Consumer protection act . The Court disagrees. The Consumer protection act does not apply to this case because none of the parties is a consumer, which means a natural person. Jurisprudence submitted by Ferme is thus irrelevant. [ 15 ] Finally, Pièces Mackey asks for contractual interest of 24 % per year. There is no evidence of an agreement between the parties concerning interest.

A note on the invoice about “administration charge” is not enough to be legally bonding, even if the invoice is signed by the client [5] . [ 16 ] Legal interest and additional indemnity will start only from the assignation's date because prior to trial and again at the hearing, Ferme made a formal non conditional offer to pay in part, which was refused by Pièces Mackey. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANTS the action in part; CONDEMNS Ferme J.A.

Coates s.e.n.c. to pay to Pièces de tracteur Ron Mackey the amount of SIX THOUSAND TWENTY-FOUR DOLLARS AND THIRTEEN CENTS ($ 6,024.13) with legal interest and the additional indemnity provided in

article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec , starting January 14, 2020, with judicial costs. __________________________________ SOPHIE LAPIERRE, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: November 11, 2021