2012 QCCQ 1111, 2012 QCCQ 1111

Abouchakra c. Arvisais 2012 QCCQ 1111 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF HULL TOWN OF Civil Division No: 550-32-018843-109 DATE: January 25, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE RAYMOND SÉGUIN, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ FRANÇOIS ABOUCHAKRA MÉLISSA ABOUCHAKRA […] Ottawa (ON) […] Plaintiffs v. ARVISAIS MARC BIJOUTERIE ARVISAIS 1100 boul.

Maloney Ouest Gatineau (Québec) J8T 6G3 Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The hearing proceeded by default, since nobody was present on behalf of the defendants. [ 2 ] The plaintiffs explain their cause of action as follows: 2. May 8 th , 2010 (Saturday) Plaintiffs contacted Defendant to make an appointment to meet and discuss possible designs for plaintiff Melissa Abouchakra's wedding bands. 3.

May 11 th , 2010 (Tuesday) Plaintiffs meet with Defendant to show Defendant the engagement ring. Defendant took a look and promised to make the prefect ring. Defendant asked plaintiffs to return on May 20 th , 2010 because he was going on vacation. Plaintiffs expressed their concern about the timeframe. Defendant assured plaintiffs that there was enough time since the designer usually has his rings ready in 10 business days. 4.

May 30 th , 2010 (Sunday) Plaintiffs meet with Defendant to discuss ring creation (design and manufacture) Defendant sent plaintiffs away again with no progress stating that he needed a week to come up with the « perfect » design. Defendant criticized the quality of Plaintiffs engagement ring, insisting that the ring be remade. Defendant was concerned with the setting of the 1.03K diamond. Plaintiff Melissa Abouchakra's ring was manufactures in Beirut, Lebanon.

[…] 5. June 14 th , 2010 (Monday) Plaintiffs meet with Defendant to view the sketch of the wedding bands. Plaintiffs were very confused with the drawing, and could not really tell what the rings would look like. Defendant explained that we could not really understand because we are not in the jeweller business. The Defendant stated that wax molds would be created and the plaintiffs would have a better understanding of what the rings would look like. The plaintiffs and Defendant determined a few details about the two wedding bands that would be created by the Defendant;

a) VS,GH diamonds would be used b) 8 diamonds (four on each band) c) 80 1 pt diamonds would be set in a pave setting along The sides matching the plaintiffs engagement ring.

d) all three rings were to to be made with 19K extra white gold After listening to the Defendants concern about the plaintiffs current engagement ring, Plaintiffs decided to have Defendant remake the ring. Plaintiffs trusted the Defendant. A price of $3500 was agreed upon by both parties to manufacture one engagement ring and two wedding bands. […] 9. July 2 nd , 2010 Plaintiffs meet with Defendant to pick up the engagement ring and two wedding bands. The engagement ring was made according to what was discussed however the bands were not. The wedding bands had the following faults;

a) The wedding bands did not fit properly into the engagement ring.

b) The 80 1pt diamond were replaced by 24 single diamonds set in a straight row which does not match the engagement ring.

c) The wedding bands are not aligned with the engagement ring.

d) SI diamonds were used instead of VS

e) The ring was made too small for Plaintiff Melissa Abouchakra's ring finger. (proof on recording) […] 11. July 2 nd , 2010 Plaintiffs meet with Defendant to pick up Valina ring Model R162W. Plaintiffs requested that the Defendant take back his rings and reimburse $2000 value placed by defendant for the two wedding bands. Defendant stated that the Plaintiffs have a $2000 credit and he would remake rings for the Plaintiffs for that amount. After discussing new rings the Defendant stated that is would cost an additional $600 to make the rings the Plaintiffs wanted.

After a disagreement both parties decided to resolve the issue upon return from the honeymoon. 12. Plaintiffs no longer trust the Defendant nor want to purchase his work given our extremely bad experience. The Plaintiffs wish to go separate ways and simply refund the two wedding bands which were not designed according to plaintiffs request. 13. Upon return of the Honeymoon the plaintiffs noticed that the 1.03K Diamond on the engagement ring was moving in the setting. The Defendants approached a Jeweler to seek advice.

The Plaintiffs discovered that there was a crack underneath the 1.3K Diamond setting which was causing the setting to shift. Thankfully the Diamond has not fallen. The Plaintiff Melissa Abouchakra at this time doe3s not have any rings to wear to symbolize her marriage. Photograph of crack in engagement ring submitted see attached. 14. The plaintiffs are asking that the Honorable Court request the Defendant to take back his poor craftsmanship and refund the plaintiffs. 15.

The Plaintiffs are asking the Honorable Court take into consideration that the Defendant ruined the most important day in the Plaintiffs lives. 16.

The plaintiffs are asking that the Honorable Court condemn the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiffs the amount of $2000 to reimburse the purchase and the amount of $5000 for mental anguish and bad conduct of business. [ 3 ] Since there is no evidence by any witness to contradict the plaintiffs, the counter-claim by the defendants is dismissed. [ 4 ] Having examined the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs and heard their testimonies, the Tribunal concludes that their demand is partially well founded. [ 5 ] Consequently, the plaintiffs are entitled to receive the following amounts: $2,000.00 for the two wedding bands and $1,000.00 for moral damage, for a total of $3,000.00.

THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL:

CONDEMNS the defendants, solidarily, to pay the plaintiffs, the amount of $3,000.00, plus the legal interest and the additional indemnity provided for by articles of the Civil Code of Québec , as of August 24, 2010, the date of the formal demand. THE WHOLE with the judicial fees of $159.00. ______________________ RAYMOND SÉGUIN, J.Q.C Date of hearing: December 22 nd , 2011