2011 QCCQ 936, 2011 QCCQ 936

Halluni c. 9079-0742 Québec inc. ( Auto Stop encan Que. inc.) 2011 QCCQ 936 JL3918 COUR DU QUÉBEC « Small Claims Division » CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF LONGUEUIL TOWN OF LONGUEUIL « Civil Division » N° : 505-32-025945-099 DATE : January 18 th , 2011 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE LAPORTE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ BRUNILDA HALLUNI Plaintiff c. 9079-0742 QUÉBEC INC. ( Auto Stop Encan Que.

Inc.) Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Plaintiff claims from 9079-0742 Québec Inc. (Auto Stop) an amount of 1 460,96 $ representing the difference between the price she paid to the Defendant when she bought the car and the amount she received after having remitted same to the Defendant. FACTS

[ 2 ] In April 2009 Plaintiff bought from Auto Stop a 2004 Hyundai Sonata for 6 474,77 $. [ 3 ] Halluni was told that there was 5 more years of warranty. [ 4 ] She admits not having examined the car before buying it. [ 5 ] She testified that the car broke down two weeks later. She thus brought it to a Hyundai dealership, thinking that it was still under warranty. [ 6 ] She was told that the warranty had expired and that she had to pay 3 095,00 $ to have the car repaired. She was also told that the brakes were not good anymore.

She thus wanted to return the car to the Defendant and void the sale. [ 7 ] She claims that she brought the car back to the Defendant "who gave me 5 500,00 $". [ 8 ] She now wants Defendant to be condemned to pay the difference between what she got from it when she brought the car back and the amount she had paid for the car 3 weeks prior. [ 9 ] Defendant's representative, Andréas Zacharakis, claims that Halluni never checked the car nor drived it before buying it. [ 10 ] He claims that she accepted to sell it for 5 500,00 $ when she brought it back.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION [ 11 ] When the Plaintiff returned the car to the Defendant, she accepted to sell it back for a amount of 5 500,00 $. [ 12 ] There is no proof that she was forced to sell the car for the said price. [ 13 ] As a matter of fact, there is nothing to suggest that the Plaintiff did not fully accept to deal the car back for the amount she received. [ 14 ] As the Defendant was not obliged to buy the car back the Tribunal considers that the matter has been settled between the parties when the Defendant accepted to buy it back, notwithstanding that it was for a lesser price then the one Plaintiff paid. [ 15 ] The sale was not made under duress and must thus be given effect by the Tribunal.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [ 16 ] DISMISSES Plaintiff's action, with costs. __________________________________ CLAUDE LAPORTE, J.C.Q.