Date Issued: July 22, 2025

File: SC-2024-005252

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Sehgal v. Budget Furniture Land Ltd., 2025 BCCRT 1014

Between:

DHAWAL SEHGAL

Applicant

And:

BUDGET FURNITURE LAND LTD.

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about a couch. The applicant, Dhawal Sehgal, says he agreed to buy a reclining love seat (or couch) from the respondent, Budget Furniture Land Ltd. He says after signing a contract to purchase the couch, the respondent changed the contract from a new couch to a floor display model. The applicant refused to accept the flood model and cancelled the contract. He claims a refund of the $1,900 purchase price.

2.      The respondent says the applicant knew he was getting a floor model. It says the applicant was not entitled to cancel his purchase after signing the contract. It says the cancellation resulted in significant financial losses for the company, including unsold inventory and the cost of a failed delivery. It asks me to dismiss the applicant’s claims.

3.      The applicant is self-represented. The respondent is represented by its owner, Surinder Singh Manj.

4.      For the reasons that follow, I allow the applicant’s claim.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

5.      The Civil Resolution Tribunal has jurisdiction over small claims brought under Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA) section 118. CRTA section 2 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. These are the CRT’s formal written reasons.

6.      CRTA section 39 says the CRT has discretion to decide the hearing’s format, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. Here, the parties’ disagreement is over whether or not they agreed to the sale of a new couch or a floor model. Despite that significant disagreement, I find that I am properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me, including the contract’s written copies. 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.      CRTA section 42 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.

8.      Where permitted by CRTA section 118, 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

9.      The issue in this dispute is whether the respondent must refund the applicant for a couch purchase.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

10.   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.

11.   On August 13, 2023, the applicant attended the respondent’s store and agreed to purchase a couch. The total cost, including any charges for delivery or taxes, was $1,900.

12.   On more than one occasion, the applicant refers to his “final visit” to the respondent store. So, I infer he went back to the store multiple times and that during one of those visits, he learned he would receive a floor model, not a new couch. He refused to accept the floor model.

13.   The respondent says during the August 13 visit, its representative explicitly told the applicant he would receive a floor model, to be delivered on August 19. The respondent says the applicant only refused to accept the couch when its delivery team arrived at his home on August 19.

14.   In two key areas, the parties’ evidence is in direct contradiction. Did the parties agree to a floor model? And did the respondent attempt delivery? However, I find I do not need to resolve the question of whether the respondent attempted delivery, because I find the applicant never agreed to purchase a floor model couch.

15.   Given their disagreement over terms of their bargain, I must depend upon the written evidence available. Each party provided their copies of the signed invoice, which I find served as the parties’ contract of purchase and sale. The respondent provided the white ‘original’ copy, and the applicant provided the pink carbon copy.

16.   There are significant changes between the two copies. The respondent’s white copy includes the word [floor] in square brackets in a separate column after the words “Reclining love seat.” The applicant’s pink carbon copy does not. These are not two separately prepared invoices, but one showing additions made after the parties both signed the agreement.

17.   Here, I find the addition of “[floor]” significantly changes the parties’ contract. The respondent did not provide any explanation for why their copy contains the floor notation, but the applicant’s does not.

18.   So, the applicant asks me to find the respondent altered their copy without his knowledge and then attempted to depend on it. I do.

19.   In the absence of any explanation from the respondent, I find it changed the parties’ contract after signing and then attempted to substitute a floor model for the agreed-upon new couch. I find the applicant was justified in refusing to accept the substitution of a used model. Since the respondent did not complete its obligations under the parties’ contract of purchase and sale, the applicant is entitled to his money back.

20.    The Court Order Interest Act applies to the CRT, but the applicant explicitly said they did not want to claim pre-judgment interest. So, I order none.

21.   Under CRTA section 49 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. I see no reason in this case not to follow that general rule. I find the applicant is entitled to reimbursement of $125 in CRT fees. He did not claim any dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

22.   Within 14 days of the date of this decision, I order the respondent to pay the applicant a total of $2,025, broken down as follows:

a.    $1,900 in debt, and

b.    $125 in CRT fees.

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

24.   This is a validated decision and order. Under CRTA section 58.1, 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.