Date Issued: December 6, 2021

File: SC-2021-004195

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Pannu v. Budget Furniture Land Ltd., 2021 BCCRT 1281

Between:

TARSEM PANNU

Applicant

And:

BUDGET FURNITURE LAND LTD.

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about a furniture sale. The applicant, Tarsem Pannu, says the respondent, Budget Furniture Land Ltd. (Budget), delivered a damaged dining room table and the wrong chairs on July 31, 2020. Mr. Pannu says Budget has refused to replace the damaged table or incorrect chairs despite assurances it would do so. He seeks an order that Budget deliver the correct chairs and new dining table, or refund him $3,050, which he says is the cost of the furniture, including shipping.

2.      Budget denies that the dining room table was damaged upon delivery, but says it agreed to replace the table with a new one, if Mr. Pannu paid shipping costs, which Mr. Pannu undisputedly declines to do. Budget says the chairs are visibly used and so it is against company policy to accept their return. It also says Mr. Pannu only recently asked that the chairs be replaced.

3.      Mr. Pannu represents himself. Budget is represented by an owner or employee, SM.

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. Here, I find that I am properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me. Further, bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate that includes proportionality and a speedy resolution of disputes, I find that an oral hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice.

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 Budget is responsible for the allegedly damaged dining room table and incorrect chairs and, if so, what is the appropriate remedy?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil proceeding like this one the applicant Mr. Pannu must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities. I have read all the parties’ submissions and weighed the evidence, but only refer to that necessary to explain my decision. Although Budget submitted argument, it did not submit any evidence, despite having the opportunity to do so.

10.   On June 28, 2020 Mr. Pannu purchased a marble dining table and 6 chairs from Budget. The furniture was delivered to Mr. Pannu’s home on July 31, 2020. None of this is disputed.

11.   Mr. Pannu says the dining room furniture was delivered to his home, wrapped and in boxes. He says his son helped the sole mover bring the wrapped furniture inside the house. Mr. Pannu says the table was chipped and damaged when he unwrapped it and refers to video clips he says he emailed to Budget on July 31, 2020. Although Mr. Pannu submitted a screen shot of his email to Budget, he did not submit the attached video clips or any photos or other evidence of damage to the table. However, the email clearly says the table is chipped on multiple sides.

12.   Budget says the table was inspected by staff before it left the warehouse and was not chipped or damaged. However, as noted Budget provided no supporting evidence such as photos or a statement from a warehouse employee. Nor did SM explain how he would know such information personally. So, I do not accept SM’s submission that the table was not damaged when it was delivered.

13.   On balance, I find the table was likely chipped when it arrived, as claimed by Mr. Pannu. This is because I find Mr. Pannu emailed Budget about the table the same day he received it. I also accept Mr. Pannu’s undisputed statement that he saw the damage and telephoned J, a Budget salesperson, about the table on the same day it was delivered. Further, I find if Budget had inspected the table before delivery it would have provided evidence of that. More on the table later.

14.   The parties agree that Budget sent Mr. Pannu the incorrect dining chairs. Budget says it is against company policy to accept any returned furniture that is visibly used. I find Budget’s policy irrelevant as it provided no evidence that Mr. Pannu agreed to be bound by that policy. In any event, I find Budget agreed to replace the incorrect chairs shortly after they were delivered, as explained below. So, I do not accept Budget’s argument that Mr. Pannu only recently asked Budget to replace visibly used chairs.

15.   Mr. Pannu says J, a Budget salesperson, agreed to replace the damaged dining room table and the incorrect chairs verbally on July 31, 2020, during other telephone calls, and in person in December 2020. Mr. Pannu also says J told Mr. Pannu he could use the furniture until the replacement items arrived. Budget provided no statement from J disputing this, so I accept that J told Mr. Pannu he could continue to use the incorrect and damaged furniture.

16.   Although Mr. Pannu provided audio recordings of telephone conversations with J on September 22, 2020, they are not in English. Parties are told to submit all their evidence in English. So, I cannot give the recordings any weight. However, I find that J confirmed that he would deliver a replacement table and chairs to Mr. Pannu in English text messages on September 22, 2020, and March 20 and 25, 2021. Further, as noted above, Budget does not dispute what J agreed to. Rather, it disputes that J had the authority to agree to replace Mr. Pannu’s furniture.

17.   In Keddie v. Canada Life Assurance Co., 1999 BCCA 541, the BC Court of Appeal held that a company may be held liable for its agent’s conduct if the agent had actual or apparent authority. The court explained that apparent authority flows from the principal’s words or actions which lead a third party such as Mr. Pannu to believe the agent has authority to bind the principle. Apparent authority is not subject to the actual relationship between the principal and agent.

18.   In this case Budget says J did not have the authority to agree to replace the furniture at no cost to Mr. Pannu. As explained below, I disagree.

19.   Budget does not dispute that J is its employee. Further, I find J’s business card, which he gave to Mr. Pannu, clearly shows that J is a sales supervisor for Budget. Third, based on Mr. Pannu’s undisputed submissions, I accept that J negotiated a sales contract on Budget’s behalf with Mr. Pannu. Budget does not dispute that J was authorized to sell Mr. Pannu the furniture. On balance, I find a reasonable person would find a company’s salesperson, who finalized a sale, would also have the authority to remedy any errors in that sales contract, particularly as a sales supervisor. Budget has not provided any contrary evidence.

20.   On balance, I find J acted with apparent authority as Budget’s agent. So, I find Budget is bound by J’s agreement to replace Mr. Pannu’s table and chairs, at no cost to Mr. Pannu. I find that Budget’s agreement to replace the damaged and incorrect furniture was an amendment to the original sales agreement, so in the circumstances here fresh consideration (something of value) is not required (see Rosas v. Toca, 2018 BCCA 191).

21.   I do not accept SM’s submission that Mr. Pannu told him that he agreed to pay shipping costs for the replacement dining table as Mr. Pannu disputes it and Budget has provided no supporting evidence, such as text messages, emails, or witness statements.

22.   I now turn to the appropriate remedy.

23.   Mr. Pannu asks that I order Budget to “deliver the correct dining table and chairs”. An order to do something is known as injunctive relief. I find CRTA section 118 gives the CRT the authority to order injunctive relief in narrow circumstances, such as specific performance of an agreement, which I find is the case here. However, the CRT will generally not order specific performance of an agreement when monetary compensation will suffice, which I find applies here.

24.   I also find I cannot order Budget to “deliver the correct dining table and chairs” as agreed to, as the requested order is too vague. An injunctive order cannot be vague and ambiguous because breaching an order is punishable in a quasi-criminal manner. An injunction must give the parties proper notice of the obligations imposed on them and clearly define the expected standard of compliance (see Nova Scotia v. Dourcet-Boudreau, 2003 SCC 62).

25.   I find Mr. Pannu’s requested order does not contain the precise language required for an injunction. Nor is there any sales invoice or document from which I could determine the specific make and model of the dining table, or the correct chairs, in order to make a clear injunction order. So, I decline to order Budget to deliver the “correct” furniture.

26.   So, I turn to consider what amount of money is appropriate. Neither party provided a copy of the invoice, sales order, or other document proving the furniture’s cost. However, Budget does not dispute Mr. Pannu’s statement that he paid $3,050 for the furniture. Since Budget specifically says shipping to Mr. Pannu’s location is $350, I find Mr. Pannu likely paid $350 for shipping the original furniture plus $2,700 for the actual furniture itself, for a total of $3,050.

27.   I acknowledge that Mr. Pannu has now had, and undisputedly used, the damaged table and incorrect chairs for over 1 year. However, I find that is not Mr. Pannu’s fault, as he acted upon J’s advice to use the furniture while awaiting replacement furniture. I find Mr. Pannu attempted to remedy the situation immediately upon receiving the damaged and incorrect furniture and repeatedly asked J to provide replacement furniture, based on their text messages and Mr. Pannu’s submissions. So, I find it would not be appropriate to reduce any monetary damages to Mr. Pannu because he had the benefit of the incorrect furniture during that time. However, Mr. Pannu will retain the benefit of keeping the damaged table and incorrect chairs which I find likely have some monetary value.

28.   In other words, I find Mr. Pannu is entitled to reimbursement of the $3,050 as I find that is the likely cost to Mr. Pannu to get the correct furniture. However, I also find that amount should be reduced by the value of the damaged table and incorrect dining chairs, which Mr. Pannu undisputedly retains. On a judgment basis, I value the used furniture at $1,000, as there is no direct evidence on the matter. So, I find Mr. Pannu is entitled to $2,050 overall.

29.   The Court Order Interest Act applies to the CRT. Mr. Pannu is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $2,050 in damages from July 31, 2020, the date I find he raised the breach of the sales agreement with Budget, to the date of this decision. This equals $12.49.

30.   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. As Mr. Pannu was successful in his claim, I find he is entitled to reimbursement of his $175 CRT fees. He claimed no dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

31.   Within 30 days of the date of this order, Budget must pay Mr. Pannu a total of $2,237.49, broken down as follows:

a.    $2,050 in damages,

b.    $12.49 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act,

c.    $175 in CRT fees.

32. Mr. Pannu is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

33.    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.