Date Issued: October 31, 2022

File: SC-2021-006824

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Chen v. H.A.L.T. Holdings Ltd., 2022 BCCRT 1187

Between:

XIAO CHEN

Applicant

And:

H.A.L.T. HOLDINGS LTD. and NATIONAL CAR RENTAL SYSTEM (CANADA) INC. NATIONAL RESEAU DE LOCATION D’AUTOS (CANADA) INC.

Respondents

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Micah Carmody

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about a vehicle rental rate.

2.      The applicant, Xiao Chen, says they rented a Toyota Rav-4 (vehicle) from one or both respondents, H.A.L.T. Holdings Ltd. (HALT) and National Car Rental System (Canada) Inc. National Reseau De Location D’Autos (Canada) Inc. (National). HALT appears to do business under the National car rental brand.

3.      Mr. Chen started renting the vehicle in March 26, 2021, at a monthly base rate of $999. In late July 2021, HALT advised it was increasing the monthly base rate to $2,600. Mr. Chen says they called National’s customer service line and were assured that the monthly rate would remain at $999. On that basis, on July 24 Mr. Chen signed the July 24 document despite it setting out a $2,600 monthly rate. Mr. Chen says HALT has overcharged them $3,111.15, including taxes and fees. They claim that amount against the respondents. Mr. Chen is self-represented.

4.      HALT says it did not overcharge Mr. Chen as Ms. Chen undisputedly signed the July 24 document setting out the new $2,600 monthly rate. HALT is represented by an employee or principal.

5.      National did not respond to the Dispute Notice and is technically in default, which I address below.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

6.      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.

7.      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.

8.      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.

9.      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.

ISSUES

10.   The issues in this dispute are:

a.    Is the evidence of the oral representations about rental rates admissible?

b.    Did National’s representations about the rental rate amount to a misrepresentation or a collateral warranty?

c.    Is Mr. Chen entitled to a refund from either respondent of the alleged $3,111.15 overcharge?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

11.   As the applicant in this civil proceeding, Mr. Chen must prove their claims 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.

12.   It is undisputed that Mr. Chen rented the vehicle on a series of monthly agreements. The first agreement ran from March 26 to April 23, 2021. The rate was $999 per month, and with taxes and other charges the total due was $1,179.36. Invoices show that Mr. Chen paid the same rate for April 25–May 25, May 25–June 24, and June 24-July 24, 2021.

13.   The rental agreements in evidence have National’s logo on top. At the bottom of the agreements, near where Mr. Chen signed, the “owner” is identified as “H.A.L.T. Holdings Ltd. Canada Company”. HALT says the only parties to the rental agreements were it and Mr. Chen. HALT’s relationship with National was not explained by either party, but I infer it was a franchise relationship or some other arrangement that allowed HALT to do business using the National vehicle rental brand. Despite National’s logo at top of the agreement, there is no indication that the corporate entity National Car Rental System Inc. National Reseau De Location D’Autos (Canada) Inc. was a party to the agreement. On the evidence before me, I find all the rental agreements were between Mr. Chen and HALT.

14.   Mr. Chen says on July 22, 2021, they received a call from the “local office”, which I find was operated by HALT. HALT confirms that a HALT employee, VK, made this call to Mr. Chen to advise them of the upcoming seasonal rate increase if they wanted to rent the car for another month. Mr. Chen says they found the phone call suspicious, so they called the National customer service line. Mr. Chen says National’s customer service told them the rate would not increase.

15.   On July 24, 2021, Mr. Chen attended HALT’s car rental location and spoke with a manager, RS. It is undisputed that RS explained the rate increase. In particular, RS gave Mr. Chen the option of returning their previous vehicle that day as agreed, or renting a vehicle at the new rate of $2,600 per month, with total estimated charges of $2,972.48. As well, RS undisputedly explained that National customer service could not determine rates independently on behalf of the local offices. RS said, in Mr. Chen’s words, “he was the decision maker.” The same day, Mr. Chen signed the July 24 written document that showed the rate as $2,600. It is undisputed that Mr. Chen told HALT that despite signing the agreement they would be disputing the rate with National customer service.

16.   Mr. Chen says they followed up by calling National customer service several times in July and August 2021. Each time, they say they received a similar answer, along the lines of “no worries” and that someone would take care of the issue and give them a response within 5-7 days. However, they never received a firm response despite calling several times.

17.   In essence, Mr. Chen argues that they relied on the National customer service representative’s assurances that Mr. Chen would only have to pay the lower rate they had previously paid and not the higher rate stated in the document they signed on July 24.

18.   There is a strong common law presumption that signed written contracts reflect the parties’ true agreement. The parol evidence rule says that, where there is a written agreement, outside evidence cannot be admitted to vary, modify, add or contradict the written agreement’s terms (see Gallen v. Butterley, 1984 CanLII 752 (BCCA) at paragraph 56). However, there are many exceptions to the rule, including where a party alleges a misrepresentation or a collateral agreement.

19.   Although Mr. Chen does not use those terms, I find in effect Mr. Chen argues that National’s customer service representative’s statements about the rental rates were oral representations that induced them to sign the July 24 document. Those representations, they argue, led them to understand that despite the higher rate in the document, they would only have to pay the former rate. I find Mr. Chen’s unchallenged evidence about their conversations with National’s customer service representatives is therefore admissible as an exception to the parol evidence rule, and I have considered it. For the same reason, I find both Mr. Chen’s and HALT’s evidence about what RS said to Mr. Chen before he signed the July 24 document is also admissible.

20.   However, I find Mr. Chen’s claim cannot succeed. Mr. Chen acknowledges that before he signed the July 24 document, RS explained that HALT had the final say on rental rates, and that the rate was as stated in the July 24 document. In other words, HALT explicitly addressed Mr. Chen’s misunderstanding and explained that the National representative’s oral assurances had no effect on the parties’ contract. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that HALT intended that the oral assurances had contractual effect. I find this holds true even if National’s customer service representatives had authority under an agency relationship with HALT, which in any event is unproven here.

21.   In summary, I find Mr. Chen’s agreement with HALT was entirely set out in the July 24 written document and there was no collateral agreement. I also find the contract was not induced by a misrepresentation. Rather, I find Mr. Chen freely entered into the contract on the hope that a third party would be able to convince HALT to lower its rates retroactively. I find that insufficient to vary the express terms of the contract. So, I find HALT did not overcharge Mr. Chen and did not breach the contract, and I dismiss the claim against HALT.

22.   I turn to Mr. Chen’s claim against National. As noted above, National is in default, which means liability may be assumed. However, I am not prepared to assume National’s liability here, where Mr. Chen’s claim is about breach of contract with Halt.

23.   Mr. Chen does not articulate the legal basis of their claim against National, with which I find they had no contract. I have considered whether Mr. Chen might argue National committed a tort (legal wrong), such as a negligent misrepresentation. However, this argument cannot succeed because I find Mr. Chen’s reliance on National’s oral representations was not reasonable. This is because, as noted above, HALT explicitly told Mr. Chen that National did not have authority to bind HALT or set rental rates. The allegations against a defaulting party can only be considered proven to the extent that the court (or the CRT) does not find otherwise (see Schwartz v. Longview Motel & Saloon Corp., 1994 CanLII 8954 (AB KB), at paragraph 90). So, despite National’s default status, I dismiss the claim against National.

24.   Under section 49 of the CRTA and CRT rules, a successful party is generally entitled to recover their CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. The respondents were successful but did not pay CRT fees or claim expenses. I dismiss Mr. Chen’s claim for reimbursement of CRT fees and $29.30 in printing and mailing costs.

ORDER

25.   I dismiss Mr. Chen’s claims and this dispute.