Date Issued: October 27, 2021

File: SC-2021-003208

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Grove v. Stedman, 2021 BCCRT 1136

Between:

RON GROVE

Applicant

And:

JONATHAN STEDMAN

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      The applicant, Ron Grove, purchased a used computer video card from the respondent, Jonathan Stedman. Mr. Grove says the video card does not work. He seeks a refund of the $650 he paid Mr. Stedman.

2.      Mr. Stedman says the video card was fully functional at the time of sale. He says Mr. Grove may have damaged it after purchase, or incorrectly installed it. He says the claim should be dismissed.

3.      Each party is self-represented.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

4.      These are the formal written reasons of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT). The CRT has jurisdiction over small claims brought under section 118 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA). Section 2 of the CRTA states that the CRT’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly. In resolving disputes, the CRT must apply principles of law and fairness, and recognize any relationships between the dispute’s parties that will likely continue after the CRT process has ended.

5.      Section 39 of the CRTA says the CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. In some respects, the parties in this dispute call into question each other’s credibility. Credibility of witnesses, particularly where there is conflict, cannot be determined solely by the test of whose personal demeanour in a courtroom or tribunal proceeding appears to be the most truthful. In Yas v. Pope, 2018 BCSC 282, the court recognized that oral hearings are not necessarily required where credibility is in issue. In the circumstances of this dispute, I find that I am able to assess and weigh the evidence and submissions before me. Bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate that includes proportionality and prompt resolution of disputes, I decided to hear this dispute through written submissions.

6.      Section 42 of the CRTA says the CRT may accept as evidence information that it considers relevant, necessary and appropriate, whether or not the information would be admissible in a court of law. The CRT may also ask questions of the parties and witnesses and inform itself in any other way it considers appropriate.

7.      Where permitted by section 118 of the CRTA, in resolving this dispute the CRT may order a party to do or stop doing something, pay money or make an order that includes any terms or conditions the CRT considers appropriate.

ISSUE

8.      The issue in this dispute is whether the video card was in working condition when sold, and if not, whether Mr. Grove is entitled to a refund of the $650 he paid.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      As the applicant in this civil dispute, Mr. Grove must prove his claim on a balance of probabilities, meaning more likely than not. I have considered all the parties’ evidence and submissions, but only refer to what is necessary to explain my decision.

10.   The background facts are undisputed. Mr. Stedman advertised the used video card for sale on the website “Used Victoria”. On March 22, 2021, Mr. Grove responded to that advertisement. The parties met in a public space and Mr. Grove visually inspected the video card. Mr. Grove paid Mr. Stedman $650 in cash for the video card.

11.   Mr. Grove says as soon as he got home after buying the video card, he tested it in a computer he was assembling. He says the video card’s fan did not spin, and there was no video output signal. He says he tested it in another computer, and it did not work. To rule out the computers as the problem, Mr. Grove says he tested both computers with a different video card that worked.

12.   Mr. Stedman says Mr. Grove has not proved that he correctly installed and tested the video card. Mr. Stedman says 2 photos show the video card installed and operating in his personal desktop. There is a “March 20” date stamp above the photos. Mr. Grove suggests the date stamp has been modified. I note the photos are submitted as pdfs rather than the original image files, and so the metadata, which includes the date each photo was taken, is not available. Mr. Stedman used different, generic photos in the Used Victoria posting and says he was unable to upload the March 20 photos. On balance, I find the photos’ dates inconclusive and so I find Ms. Stedman’s photo evidence unhelpful.

13.   In May 2021, Mr. Grove contacted the video card’s manufacturer, Gigabyte, to see if it was covered under their 3-year warranty. An email from Gigabyte said the video card, identified by serial number, was sent in for warranty service in December 2020 and was “rejected due to physical damage.” It said the warranty was voided and the video card was no longer repairable.

14.   I find the most compelling evidence about whether the video card worked is the Gigabyte email. That email establishes that the video card previously suffered physical damage and was beyond repair. I find on a balance of probabilities that the video card was not working when Mr. Stedman sold it to Mr. Grove.

15.   Mr. Stedman explains that he is the video card’s second owner, and says he told Mr. Grove this before the purchase. I find this does not change the outcome, given Mr. Stedman’s Used Victoria listing said the video card was “still a workhorse.” Mr. Stedman agrees he offered for sale a working used video card. So, I reject Mr. Stedman’s assertion that he sold the video card “as is.”

16.   I find Mr. Stedman’s representation that the video card worked was a negligent misrepresentation. Specifically, I find that Mr. Stedman failed to exercise reasonable care to ensure that the video card worked, and the representation that it worked reasonably induced Mr. Grove to buy the item: see Queen v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 SCR 87 at paragraph 110. Although Mr. Stedman says Mr. Grove did not note any concerns with the card’s condition when he inspected the card, I agree with Mr. Grove that physical damage to electronic parts is not always observable with the naked eye. I find this is common knowledge and does not require expert evidence to prove.

17.   Alternatively, I would find a breach of an implied warranty. Section 18(c) of the Sale of Goods Act (SGA) applies to used goods sold privately. It says that there is an implied condition that the goods will be durable for a reasonable period of time having regard to the use to which they would normally be put and to the surrounding circumstances. Because the video card was not working the next day, I find it did not meet the implied warranty in SGA section 18(c).

18.   Whether Mr. Stedman’s conduct is viewed as a misrepresentation or a breach of an implied warranty, the remedy is the same. The measure of damages is the difference between the price paid and the actual value: see SGA section 56(3) and Beacock v Moreno, 2019 BCSC 955, paragraph 199. I find the non-working video card has no value, so Mr. Grove is entitled to a full refund of the $650 purchase price as claimed.

19.   The Court Order Interest Act applies to the CRT. Mr. Grove is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $650 from March 22, 2021, the date of the purchase, to the date of this decision. This equals $1.76.

20.   Under section 49 of the CRTA and CRT rules, the CRT will generally order an unsuccessful party to reimburse a successful party for CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. Mr. Grove was successful, so I find he is entitled to reimbursement of $125 in CRT fees. Neither party claimed dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

21.   Within 14 days of the date of this order, I order Mr. Stedman to pay Mr. Grove a total of $776.76, broken down as follows:

a.    $650.00 as a refund for the video card,

b.    $1.76 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and

c.    $125.00 in CRT fees.

22.   Mr. Grove is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

23.   Under section 48 of the CRTA, the CRT will not provide the parties with the Order giving final effect to this decision until the time for making a notice of objection under section 56.1(2) has expired and no notice of objection has been made. The time for filing a notice of objection is 28 days after the party receives notice of the CRT’s final decision.

24.   Under section 58.1 of the CRTA, a validated copy of the CRT’s order can be enforced through the Provincial Court of British Columbia. A CRT order can only be enforced if it is an approved consent resolution order, or, if no objection has been made and the time for filing a notice of objection has passed. Once filed, a CRT order has the same force and effect as an order of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.