Date Issued: October 16, 2023

File: SC-2022-008117

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Melo Processing Inc. v. Jasmine Halal Meats and Medetaranian Produce Enterprise Ltd., 2023 BCCRT 879

Between:

MELO PROCESSING INC.

Applicant

And:

JASMINE HALAL MEATS AND MEDETARANIAN PRODUCE ENTERPRISE LTD.

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Christopher C. Rivers

 

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about the purchase and sale of retail packages of tea. The applicant, Melo Processing Inc. (Melo), says it delivered a variety of looseleaf and bagged tea to the respondent, Jasmine Halal Meats and Medetaranian Produce Enterprise Ltd. (Jasmine), but has not been paid for the order. Melo claims $747 for its unpaid invoice.

2.      Jasmine says it did not agree to purchase the tea, but to sell it on a consignment basis on Melo’s behalf. Jasmine says it has sent two payments totaling $370.25 based on the tea it has sold, but Melo refused to accept them. I infer Jasmine agrees Melo is entitled to $370.25 but asks me to dismiss Melo’s claim for the remaining balance of $376.75.

3.      Melo is represented by a family member of its president. Jasmine is represented by its owner, Mohamad Mohaidly.

4.      For the reasons that follow, I allow Melo’s claim for the unpaid invoice.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

5.      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.

6.      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.

7.      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.

8.      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

9.      The issue in this dispute is whether Jasmine must pay Melo’s invoice of $747.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

10.   In a civil proceeding like this one, Melo must prove its claims on a balance of probabilities. This means “more likely than not”. I have read all the parties’ submissions and evidence but refer only to the evidence and argument I find relevant to provide context for my decision.

11.   Melo is a food supply and distribution company. Jasmine is a food retailer. It is undisputed that on April 29, 2022, Melo delivered 78 packages of looseleaf and bagged tea to Jasmine.

12.   Jasmine says Melo delivered the tea following the first meeting between the companies’ directors. Jasmine says the parties verbally agreed to a consignment arrangement for the sale of tea. I return to this argument later.

13.   Melo says when it delivered the tea, it also provided a packing slip and invoice (order documents). The order documents together show delivery of 78 packages of tea from Melo to Jasmine for a total charge of $747. The invoice is dated April 29, 2022, and has a due date of May 14, 2022.

14.   Melo says the order documents set out the terms of the parties’ agreement, including the goods’ cost and the date payment was due. There is no mention of any consignment arrangement in the order documents. In submissions, Melo says it charges 1.5% interest on late payments, however there are no terms about interest in the order documents.

15.   The order documents also show someone’s hand-written initials or signature. While the parties disagree on who signed the packing slip, I find nothing turns on the issue of the signature, as Jasmine admits it received a copy of the order documents along with the tea. Jasmine says it is a fast-paced business, so it did not have time to review the order documents when it received them.

16.   Melo says it followed up with Jasmine regarding payment by telephone on May 18, 2022, and then by email on May 21, 2022. Melo did not provide an email dated May 21, 2022. However, it did provide emails to Jasmine dated June 29, July 20, and October 13, 2022. Melo also provided copies of registered mail it attempted to send on October 10, 2022, along with a screenshot from the Canada Post website showing the recipient refused the item.

17.   Jasmine provided evidence of two attempted payments to Melo for the quantities of tea it had sold. In a cheque dated August 10, 2022, Jasmine attempted to pay Melo $120.25, and in a cheque dated October 12, 2022, Jasmine attempted to pay Melo $250. Jasmine stopped both cheque payments before they were cashed.

18.   I find the parties each believed they had some form of agreement pertaining to the tea but disagree about whether it was a contract for purchase and sale or a consignment agreement.

19.   I start with the basic principles of contract formation. The parties must mutually intend to create a binding contract. For a contract to exist, there must be a “meeting of the minds.” In other words, the parties must agree to all the essential terms of a contract. These can include price, scope of work, timing of work, and location of work. Contracts do not need to be written or signed to be enforceable. However, it can be more difficult to prove a verbal agreement’s terms.

20.   Whether there is an enforceable contract involves an objective test based on what a reasonable person in the parties’ situation would have believed and understood, rather than on the parties’ subjective beliefs. The contract’s essential terms must be sufficiently clear, and the party seeking to rely on the contract must show there was a matching offer and acceptance of those terms. See Ratanshi v. Brar Natural Flour Milling (B.C.) Inc., 2021 BCSC 2216 at paragraphs 66 to 69.

21.   In this case, I find the order documents provided with the tea set out the essential terms of the parties’ contract. Melo was required to deliver 78 packages of tea for which it was entitled to be paid $747 by May 14, 2022. Jasmine undisputedly accepted the delivery of tea, along with the order documents, and began to sell the tea.

22.   I find a reasonable person in the parties’ situation would understand from the order documents that this was a basic contract for purchase and sale. I do not find it reasonable that Jasmine failed to review the order documents on delivery or at least in the following days. I also do not find it reasonable that Jasmine would not review the order documents prior to stocking its shelves with the tea or preparing and sending payments to Melo. So, I allow Melo’s claim for its unpaid invoice of $747.

23.   The order documents do not contain any evidence about monthly interest charges and there is no evidence Jasmine agreed to pay monthly interest.

24.   In the absence of contractual interest, the Court Order Interest Act applies to the CRT. I find Jasmine must pay Melo pre-judgment interest under the COIA on the $747. Calculated from May 14, 2022, the invoice’s due date, to the date of this decision, interest equals $34.27.

25.   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. I see no reason in this case not to follow that general rule. I find Melo is entitled to $150 in CRT fees. Melo did not claim any dispute-related expenses.

ORDER

26.   Within 14 days of the date of this order, I order Jasmine to pay Melo a total of $931.27, broken down as follows:

a.    $747 in debt,

b.    $34.37 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and

c.    $150 in CRT fees.

27.   Melo is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

28.   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. Once filed, a CRT order has the same force and effect as an order of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.