2010 QCCQ 11819, 2010 QCCQ 11819

Banerjee c. 9107-7164 Québec inc. (Méga Kia Brossard) 2010 QCCQ 11819 JL3918 COUR DU QUÉBEC « Small claims » CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF LONGUEUIL TOWN OF LONGUEUIL « Civil Division » N° : 505-32-025805-095 DATE : Le 17 décembre 2010 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE LAPORTE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ SUBOL KUMAR BANERJEE Plaintiffs c. 9107-7164 QUÉBEC INC. (f.a.s.n. MÉGA KIA BROSSARD) Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________

[ 1 ] Plaintiff Subol Kumar Banerjee claims from Defendant 9107-7164 Québec Inc. ( Québec Inc. ) the sum of 4 281,79 $ representing the cost of replacing the windshield of a car he bought from the said Defendant as well as a reduction of price. [ 2 ] Defendant denies owing anything to the plaintiff in view of the fact that the car was not a new car. ISSUES [ 3 ] The Tribunal must decide whether Plaintiff is entitled to obtain a reduction of the price of the car for the reason that the car was to be new and the windshield had to be replaced.

FACTS [ 4 ] On or about March 25 th , 2009 Banerjee makes an offer to purchase a Kia Magentis 2009 car to the Defendant for a price of 23 991,43 $ (taxes included). [ 5 ] On the said document there is a mention that the car is a "new car". [ 6 ] The same mention is found on the contract of sale by installement signed by Plaintiff in order to buy the car. [ 7 ] The car was actually bought on April 16 th . On the contract of sale it is written that the car that was sold was a "demo" ("véhicule d'essai").

There is also a reduction of price in the amount of 4 600,00 $. [ 8 ] Plaintiff admits that at the moment he signed the contract he was told that the car was not new, that it was a demo with approximately 10 000 kms. Nevertheless Plaintiff decided to go ahead and buy the car. ANALYSIS [ 9 ] Plaintiff was well aware of the fact that the car had some "experience" at the time he bought it in April 2009.

This is indeed why the price was reduced. [ 10 ] His action must fail since he bought the car with full knowledge of the situation. [ 11 ] There is not proof that the Plaintiff was induced to sign the contract against his will. [ 12 ] As far as the windshield is concerned the Tribunal is satisfied that there was no hidden defect at of time of the sale. Since there was no hidden defect it was bought "as is" by the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, THE COURT : [ 13 ] DISMISSES Plaintiff's action; [ 14 ] WITH COSTS. __________________________________ CLAUDE LAPORTE, J.C.Q.