2023 QCCQ 643, 2023 QCCQ 643

Saad c. Master Lock Canada Inc. 2023 QCCQ 643 COURT OF QUEBEC «Small Claims Division» CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTRÉAL "Civil Division" N° : 500-32-710711-195 DATE : February 24, 2023 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ SHERIF SAAD Plaintiff vs. MASTER LOCK CANADA INC.

Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiff purchased from the Defendant a master lock safe at the cost of $35.38 to store personal items.

One item, an iPhone was damaged by water. [ 2 ] Alleging that the Defendant falsely claimed that the safe would prevent damage by water, he claims the cost of the iPhone, the cost of his and his family’s ruined vacation, as well as moral damages of $10,000 for an amount of $14,700. [ 3 ] The Defendant denies any liability, alleging that the safe was water-resistant but not waterproof. It adds that the Plaintiff was negligent.

THE CONTEXT [ 4 ] In July 2019, the Plaintiff purchased the portable Master Lock Safe on Amazon, manufactured by the Defendant [1] . [ 5 ] The description provided on the Amazon site [2] as well as the information provided by the manufacturer, the Defendant [3] , describes the particularities of the product, namely it is water-resistant. [ 6 ] While vacationing in Cuba with his spouse and his child, the Plaintiff left the portable safe on a beach chair while swimming in the sea. [ 7 ] In it the Plaintiff has stored his cell phone, a $20 bill and two cigars.

[ 8 ] During the period where the safe was left on the chair, it rained between 30 minutes to one hour, according to Plaintiff’s testimony. [ 9 ] When he retrieved his stored items, he discovered that water had penetrated into his cell phone. [ 10 ] The Plaintiff complains that he had no access to financial information in his cell phone, as well as he was unable to prepare an exam in finance which he was to undertake in December 2019. [ 11 ] He states that his vacation, as well as the vacation of his family was ruined, for which he claims the cost of the vacation at $3,900, the cost of his phone and $10,000 for moral damages because the Defendant was negligent and ignored his messages [4] .

THE ANALYSIS [ 12 ] The Plaintiff has the burden of proving the Defendant’s fault and the damages suffered [5] . [ 13 ] On the other hand, Master Lock must obey by the information provided on the product [6] . [ 14 ] On the Amazon site, in the advertisement of the product, it states: «Durable, Water-Resistant Construction Durable, water-resistant construction keeps valuables secure and dry.» [Partial reproduction] [ 15 ] The concise Oxford English Dictionary defines waterproof as impervious (meaning allowing fluid to pass through) to water, while water-resistant is defined as able to resist the penetration of water to some degree but not entirely.

There is a clear distinction between these two

definitions. [ 16 ] Moreover, it is somewhat surprising that the Plaintiff was in the water during what was apparently an important rainfall during 30 minutes to one hour. [ 17 ] The description in the advertisement provided by Master Lock, did not falsely advertise that it was waterproof or falsely represented the qualities of the product sold. [ 18 ] In addition, the Plaintiff cannot succeed in his claim as the damages claimed are unreasonable and exaggerated. [ 19 ] Firstly, the Plaintiff has not convinced the Court that he was unable to remedy to the problems with the phone, even though it was subjected to water.

Moreover, the iPhone was several years old. [ 20 ] As the complaint of the Plaintiff, that he did not have access to his financial information or was unable to prepare for an exam to be written four months later, does not convince the Court of the validity of his claim. It is also unreasonable to claim the cost of the vacation, while his spouse, child, as well as himself, benefited from the vacation, namely the plane fare, the hotel, and activities.

[ 21 ] No evidence was provided by the Plaintiff that the Defendant’s representative was disrespectful to the Plaintiff. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claim with costs in the amount of $313 representing the judicial stamp of the Contestation. ___________________________ DIANE QUENNEVILLE, J.C.Q.