2013 QCCQ 11570, 2013 QCCQ 11570

Kwarteng c. SF Automobiles 2013 QCCQ 11570 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-128395-110 DATE: September 18, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE SCOTT HUGHES, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ ÉRIC PAUL KWARTENG , […] , Dollard-des-Ormeaux (Quebec) […] Plaintiff v.

SF AUTOMOBILES , 5002 Décarie, Montreal (Quebec) H3X 2H8 Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Éric Paul Kwarteng is claiming the sum of $1,459 from SF Automobiles (SF) pursuant to a special clause included in the sale contract of a used vehicle. He claims that SF neglected to repair, within a reasonable time, the brakes of the car he purchased. [ 2 ] SF contests alleging that Mr. Kwarteng was not patient enough. When Mr.

Kwarteng had his car repaired elsewhere, SF was still awaiting delivery of the required parts. The facts [ 3 ] Mr. Kwarteng purchased a used vehicle on February 23, 2011. At the time of the purchase, the ABS (anti-braking system) sensor was defective. Therefore, a signal was lit on the control board. The preponderant evidence however, shows that the brakes were working correctly. [ 4 ] SF added the following clause to the sale contract: SF Automobiles will change ABS activator when

part is available. Estimated time 7 March, 2011. [ 5 ] On March 16, 2011, SF did work on the braking system in the hope that this would solve the problem. [ 6 ] SF also ordered the required sensor from its regular Montreal supplier. Since this supplier did not have the parts in stock, SF ordered them from a dealership in Vermont. [ 7 ] On March 29, 2011, Mr. Kwarteng advised Dominic Salvati (president of SF) that he had found the parts at another Montreal dealership. SF did not have a discount with this other dealership and had, in any case already ordered and paid for the parts from the Vermont supplier. Mr.

Salvati advised Mr. Kwarteng of this. [ 8 ] Mr. Salvati requested that Mr. Kwarteng be more patient. He refused and told Mr. Salvati that he would be having the car repaired. On March 30, 2011, the car was in fact repaired at the cost of $316.11. [ 9 ] On April 1 st , 2011, SF reimbursed Mr. Kwarteng for the fees incurred for labour but refused to pay the purchase price of the parts ($646.23) since they had already been paid for to its supplier. [ 10 ] Mr. Kwarteng is claiming the purchase price of the parts, as well as an amount of $279.11 for a car rental.

Lastly, he is claiming $160 for a day's pay lost in order to meet with Mr. Salvati during his working hours. Analysis [ 11 ] SF undertook to repair the sensor of the ABS system on the car purchased by Mr. Kwarteng. It did not undertake to do so before a specific date. It did however, advise Mr. Kwarteng that the part should be available by March 7, 2011. [ 12 ] Between March 7 and March 29, 2011, Mr. Kwarteng was kept informed of SF's attempts to obtain the required parts. Mr.

Salvati did in fact order and pay for these parts within a reasonable delay. [ 13 ] Although Mr. Kwarteng's impatience is understandable, SF did not guarantee delivery of these parts for a specific date. Mr. Kwarteng should have been more patient and awaited SF's receipt of the parts required for repairs. [ 14 ] Since SF did not guarantee any such delivery date, Mr. Kwarteng has not demonstrated that SF has committed a fault. [ 15 ] In fact, the evidence shows that SF made its best efforts to do the repairs quickly. It also reimbursed Mr.

Kwarteng for the labour costs he incurred for the installation of the parts that he had himself purchased elsewhere. [ 16 ] Finally, since SF had already paid for the parts at the time Mr. Kwarteng purchased the parts himself, SF was justified not to reimburse the purchase price of the parts. [ 17 ] The Court having concluded that SF has not committed a fault, the other damages cannot be granted. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: GRANTS the contestation; DISMISSES the application of Éric Paul Kwarteng with the judicial costs in the amount of $136. __________________________________ SCOTT HUGHES, J.C.Q.

Date of audience: May 30, 2013