Date Issued: March 7, 2023

File: SC-2022-003005

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Forester v. Visions Electronics Limited Partnership, 2023 BCCRT 184

Between:

RYAN FORESTER

Applicant

And:

VISIONS ELECTRONICS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Chad McCarthy

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about television (TV) damage. The applicant, Ryan Forester, purchased a TV from the respondent, Visions Electronics Limited Partnership (Visions). When Mr. Forester first unboxed and turned on the TV months after receiving it, he says the display did not function correctly and that it later failed to turn on at all. Mr. Forester says the TV was likely defective when Visions sold it. He claims $2,156 “to repair or replace the TV.” Mr. Forester clarified in his submissions that he wants Visions to replace the broken TV with an identical model that functions correctly.

2.      Visions says the display problem was consistent with the TV being mishandled after it was removed from its box. Visions says it is not responsible for physical damage that occurred after Mr. Forester took possession of the TV, so Visions owes nothing and is not responsible for repairing or replacing the TV.

3.      Mr. Forester is self-represented in this dispute. Visions is represented by an authorized employee or principal.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

4.      These are the CRT’s formal written reasons. 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.

8.      Mr. Forester requests, in part, an order that Visions provide a replacement TV. That is a request for a party to do something, which is known as injunctive relief. Under its CRTA section 118 small claims jurisdiction, the CRT cannot order injunctive relief except in narrow circumstances that do not apply here. So, I find the requested TV replacement remedy is not available. My decision below is confined to Mr. Forester’s request for $2,156 in damages.

ISSUE

9.      The issue in this dispute is whether Visions sold Mr. Forester a broken TV or one that was not sufficiently durable. If so, must Visions pay Mr. Forester $2,156 in damages?

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

10.   In a civil proceeding like this one, as the applicant Mr. Forester must prove his claim on a balance of probabilities, meaning “more likely than not.” I have read the parties’ submissions and evidence but refer only to the evidence and arguments I find relevant to provide context for my decision. Mr. Forester submitted no documentary evidence in this dispute and provided no final submissions in response to Visions’ submissions, despite having opportunities to do so.

11.   Mr. Forester purchased the TV from Visions on December 26, 2020. There is no receipt or other document in evidence confirming how much he paid for it. Mr. Forester did not take delivery of the TV until July 2021 when he picked it up from a Visions location. Mr. Forester says he left the TV in the unopened manufacturer’s box until he installed it in a “new house” in February 2022 and discovered display problems. Mr. Forester says he installed the TV in the new house in February 2021, but from context I find he likely meant February 2022. None of this is disputed.

12.   Photos in evidence show a TV mounted high up on a wall, with vertical lines on the screen’s left side. Mr. Forester says that sometime after the photos were taken, the TV failed to turn on at all. He says the TV problems were caused by unspecified “latent” internal TV damage that was not noticeable through normal inspection, and which already existed when he received the TV. However, as further discussed below, I find none of the evidence before me shows the lines were caused by pre-existing internal damage.

13.   Visions sent a repair technician to inspect the TV. A warranty repair record in evidence says that the lines on the screen were caused by “Impact damage. Cracked screen found.” Mr. Forester does not deny that the technician found the TV screen was cracked, although Mr. Forester does not explicitly confirm what the damage was. So, I accept that the repair technician diagnosed a cracked screen from an impact.

14.   Mr. Forester says Visions sold him a defective TV, so Visions should pay to repair or replace it. With the above background in mind, was the screen broken when Visions delivered it?

15.   I find none of the submitted evidence confirms exactly when the TV damage occurred. The TV box was undisputedly undamaged when Mr. Forester picked it up from Visions. I find the first evidence of a broken screen was when Mr. Forester first turned on the TV after installing it on the wall of the new house, sometime around February 2022. That was 7 months after he took possession of it.

16.   As noted, Mr. Forester says he ultimately installed the TV in a “new house” several months after receiving it. So, I find he likely transported the TV from the pickup location to a storage location, and then later transported it again to the new house. Mr. Forester says he stored the TV “in a safe spot,” without further explanation. Mr. Forester does not say more specifically where and how the TV was stored in the 7 months after he received it, who had access to it, how he transported it to the storage location or the new house, whether he dropped it or put pressure on it at any point, how he unboxed it and installed it, and whether he read and followed any manufacturer unboxing and installation instructions. On balance, I find the submissions and evidence do not show that the TV damage likely occurred before Mr. Forester picked it up from Visions, and did not occur in the following 7 months.

17.   Mr. Forester also says Visions did not inspect the TV before he picked it up, or tell him that screen problems were possible. Mr. Forester says it was required industry protocol for Visions to ensure that the TV was in good working order before he picked it up. He says this is because latent screen problems are allegedly an “extremely prevalent problem” with large TVs, which Visions should have told him. He also says it is standard protocol for sellers to require purchasers to “legally sign off and initial” that a TV did not have latent damage before transferring the TV to the seller, which Visions did not do.

18.   As noted, Mr. Forester submitted no documentary evidence, including any about TV sales industry protocols or the likelihood of TV screen problems. I find nothing in evidence supports Mr. Forester’s assertion that pre-delivery inspections or signoffs were required industry protocol, or that large TV screen problems were extremely prevalent. Further, as noted Mr. Forester took delivery of an unopened TV box that Visions obviously had not inspected. He did not inspect the TV himself or ask Visions to inspect it, either when he picked it up or in the 7 months that followed. I also find Mr. Forester, and not Visions, was the only party who handled the TV while it was outside of its protective box, including when hanging it on a wall.

19.   I find the most persuasive evidence before me is the lack of information showing how Mr. Forester stored, handled, transported, and installed the TV during the 7 months after he received it. When weighed together with the other evidence and submissions, I find it is more likely than not that the TV damage occurred after Mr. Forester picked it up, including when he handled the unboxed TV and hung it on a wall. I find TV damage that occurred after pickup was Mr. Forester’s responsibility, and not Visions’.

20.   Next, Mr. Forester says Visions should have replaced the TV under a 2-year warranty. However, there is no warranty agreement in evidence. Visions says no applicable warranty provides coverage for physical damage to Mr. Forester’s TV that occurred after he picked it up. I find the submitted evidence is not sufficient to show that the TV damage was covered under an applicable warranty.

21.   Next, as noted, Mr. Forester suggests his TV was susceptible to screen damage. This may be an allegation that the TV was not sufficiently durable. So, although Mr. Forester did not specifically mention the Sale Of Goods Act (SGA), I considered whether Visions breached an implied condition of durability under SGA section 18(c). That section says a sales contract includes an implied condition that purchased goods will be durable for a reasonable period of time having regard to their normal use and the circumstances surrounding the sale.

22.   However, I find nothing before me shows a) the expected durability of Mr. Forester’s TV, including the type and degree of impact required to cause the screen damage, or b) that the screen damage resulted from a lack of sufficient durability, as opposed to an excessive outside force or other mishandling. So, find it unproven that the TV screen damage resulted from the TV not being sufficiently durable under SGA section 18(c).

23.   For the above reasons, I find Mr. Forester has not met his burden of proving that Visions is responsible for the TV damage, either because the TV was damaged before Mr. Forester received it, was covered under an applicable warranty agreement, or did not meet an implied condition of durability under the SGA. I dismiss Mr. Forester’s claims.

CRT Fees and Expenses

24.   Under section 49 of the CRTA, and the CRT rules, the CRT will generally order an unsuccessful party to reimburse a successful party for CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. Here, I see no reason not to follow that general rule. Mr. Forester was unsuccessful in this dispute and Visions paid no CRT fees. Neither party claimed CRT dispute-related expenses. So, I order no reimbursements.

ORDER

25.   I dismiss Mr. Forester’s claims, and this dispute.