Date Issued: February 14, 2025

File: SC-2023-011417

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Quamina v. Walker, 2025 BCCRT 214

Between:

DAVID RF QUAMINA

Applicant

And:

NICOLE INEZ WALKER

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Maria Montgomery

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about the failed sale of a used car. The applicant, David RF Quamina, paid the respondent, Nicole Inez Walker, a $500 deposit for a vehicle the respondent was selling. The respondent sold the vehicle to a third party before the applicant picked it up. The applicant claims $950 for return of the deposit, travel expenses, and a trailer rental.

2.      The respondent says the deposit was non-refundable, the applicant took too long to pick up the car, and the applicant backed out of the sale.

3.      Both parties are 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.

5.      Section 39 of the CRTA says the CRT has discretion to decide the hearing’s format, 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 court.

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 applicant is entitled to the $950 he claims in damages.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

9.      In a civil proceeding like this one, the applicant must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities. I have read all the parties’ submissions and evidence but refer only to the evidence and argument that I find relevant to provide context for my decision.

10.   The following is undisputed. The applicant responded to a Facebook Marketplace advertisement for a 1982 Volkswagen Rabbit selling for $875. The respondent’s friend, D, helped her by posting the advertisement and responding to questions. In response to the applicant’s messages, D stated that the car was not starting and was “more of a tow-away.” The applicant offered to send a $500 non-refundable deposit to confirm the sale while he made plans to move the vehicle to his home and D agreed on August 8, 2023.

11.   The applicant did not arrive at the respondent’s residence until a week later due to car trouble. The applicant says that when he arrived with a tow dolly, he discovered several logistical problems:

a.    The car could not be moved because it was blocked in by other vehicles.

b.    Only the transfer form had been left for him and no other required documentation.

c.    The tires had rotted and would not allow a tow.

       After some discussion with the respondent, who was at work, the applicant sent a text stating the situation was “logistically challenging” indicating that he was no longer interested in the purchase.

12.   Text messages in evidence show that 5 days later, on August 20, 2023, the applicant messaged the respondent asking if the car was still available. The respondent indicated that it was. The parties messaged further about timing given the respondent’s vacation and the applicant’s need to make arrangements. On September 1, 2023, the applicant said he could arrive with a trailer on September 4. The respondent replied that the vehicle was gone.

13.   The respondent says she told the applicant on the phone that moving the car required a flatbed trailer. She also says that holding the vehicle for the applicant caused her to lose the opportunity to sell to other interested buyers and that she received tickets from the municipality. She says the applicant took too long to complete the purchase. She says she sold the car for $50 to a scrap car removal company because her storage insurance had expired, and she was worried about getting more tickets.

14.   I find that the respondent breached the contract by failing to hold the car for the applicant. My reasons follow.

15.   The respondent says that the parties had no written agreement. Verbal contracts are enforceable like written ones, but they can be harder to prove. Here, I find the respondent’s friend acted as an agent for the respondent and the parties agreed that the respondent would hold the car and sell it to the applicant. Based on the text messages in evidence, I find that though the parties terminated the agreement at one point, both agreed to proceed with the contract on August 20, 2023.

16.   The respondent says that the applicant did not follow through with his part of the contract within the appropriate time frame and that she set a deadline for the applicant to pick up the car. However, text messages between the parties do not indicate that the respondent communicated any deadline or urgency. On August 20, 2023, the respondent told the applicant that the car was available, and she would communicate further when she returned from vacation. Once back from vacation, she asked when the respondent would pick up the car. I find the parties did not at any point have an agreement on a deadline. Rather, the parties’ agreement was in place when the respondent sold the car to a third party. I find that the respondent repudiated (refused to complete) the contract when she did so.

17.   The law of contracts says that unless the parties’ agreement is terminated, they must fulfil their express and implied obligations under it. Termination by repudiation occurs when a party shows an intention to not be bound by the agreement and the other party accepts the repudiation.[1]

18.   I find the applicant is entitled to damages for the respondent’s repudiatory breach. Typically, damages for breach of contract are meant to put the innocent person in the same position as if the contract had been performed.[2] These are called “expectation damages”.

19.   However, in the case of a repudiation, the non-breaching party may claim damages based on their out-of-pocket losses, rather than the ordinary measure of expected performance.[3] In other words, “put me in the position I was in before the contract was made.”

20.   Here, I find the applicant is entitled to the return of his deposit. While the parties agreed that the deposit was non-refundable I find that this was on the condition that the respondent hold the car for the applicant.

21.   The applicant claims expenses to travel to the respondent’s residence including $160 in ferry costs and $100 in gas. He also claims for $190 to rent a trailer, which I infer is the tow dolly brought to the respondent’s residence. The applicant says that these expenses were a result of the respondent’s failure to accurately disclose the condition of the car. However, I find the applicant understood there were risks in moving a vehicle that was not functioning and over 40 years old. From the evidence before me, there is no indication that the respondent or her agent made any promises about the car’s condition. The travel and trailer expenses are not a result of the respondent’s repudiation of the contract and I make no award for them.

22.   I considered whether a set-off was appropriate for the bylaw tickets the respondent received while holding the car for the applicant. However, the respondent did not explain why the vehicle attracted tickets or if she could have avoided them. Neither did she provide evidence that she paid them. Also, I note that the tickets were received after the parties’ had terminated the agreement and before they agreed to proceed with it. So, I make no set-off for the tickets.

23.   The Court Order Interest Act applies to the CRT. However, the applicant indicated in the Dispute Notice that he did not wish to claim interest and understood it could not be claimed later. So, I make no order for pre-judgment interest.

24.   Under section 49 of the CRTA, and the CRT rules, a successful party is generally entitled to the recovery of their tribunal fees and dispute-related expenses. The applicant was successful, so is entitled to reimbursement of $150 in paid tribunal fees. He did not claim any dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

25.   Within 30 days of the date of this decision, I order the respondent to pay the applicant a total of $650, broken down as follows:

a.    $500 in damages, and

b.    $150 in CRT fees.

26.   The applicant is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

27.   I dismiss the applicant’s remaining claims.

28.   This is a validated decision and order. 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. `