Small Claims Court

Small Claims Court OF NOVA SCOTIA

Citation: Conrod v. Stevenson, 2023 NSSM 101

Date: 20231003

Docket: 536680

Registry: Halifax

Between:

Clarence Conrod

Claimant

v.

Grace Stevenson

Defendant

By the Court:

[1]             This matter came before the Court on October 2, 2023 via zoom. Both parties gave evidence. No other witnesses were called.

[2]             The claim concerns the sale of a used car in March of 2023, specifically a 2006 Toyota Yaris. The parties differ on the terms of the sale. The Claimant says the agreed price was $500.00. The Defendant says it was$800.00, though she admits that she accepted $500.00 with a promise to pay her the balance at a later date.

[3]             The text messages between the parties are inconclusive but more consistent with the Defendant’s view on that point.

[4]             The Defendant insists that the sale was “as is” and that she made no specific representations as to the quality of the vehicle. Both parties say that the Defendant disclosed that the exhaust system was shot. The text exchange shows that the Claimant asked what was “wrong” with the car, to which the Defendant answered “only the exhaust pipe.” The car was not, in fact, roadworthy and eventually had to be scrapped, though not before the Claimant had invested some money in making repairs. He claims $2,500.00 in damages in this claim.

[5]             The claim is not based on any verbal warranty but on the basis that the Claimant believes he was supplied with a fraudulent inspection certificate, which he says induced him to believe that he could put the car on the road.

[6]             The Defendant says that she only gave him what she had, and did not intentionally mislead the Claimant.

[7]             The evidence before the court is confusing and inconclusive. There was apparently a sticker on the windshield that would only expire in 2024. However, the only inspection certificate that the Claimant was able to show is dated in October 2021 and is made out in the name of another person who may, or may not be, the person who sold the car to the Defendant. It is not clear that the Defendant relied on this inspection when she bought the car, but no other inspection certificate has been located or produced.

[8]             A letter from a field officer from the Department of Motor Vehicles states that the sticker was investigated and was for another vehicle altogether. This officer was not called as a witness. It would have been helpful to have his evidence on how this could have happened.

[9]             It is possible that the Defendant placed it there, which would amount to fraud, though I find the evidence insufficient to come to that conclusion.

[10]         The Claimant was never able to get the car transferred or licenced because it did not have a valid inspection certificate, and when he took it to be inspected it stood no chance of passing. He ended up selling the car for scrap.

[11]         The Claimant has involved the police and the Department of Motor Vehicles, who may or may not be investigating the matter further.

[12]         I find as a fact that the sale of the vehicle was on an “as is” basis and that the Defendant made no warranty about the condition of the vehicle. Even if she indicated that she thought it was in good condition, the Claimant ought to have known better than to accept the word of an elderly, unsophisticated seller, particularly concerning a vehicle that is some 17 years old. A prudent buyer would have insisted on having the vehicle inspected before he paid any money.

[13]         An “as is” sale means that the buyer takes it as it is.

[14]         I agree that there are some unanswered questions about the paperwork that accompanied the sale. But this is not enough to render the Defendant liable to compensate the Claimant.

[15]         The Claimant paid $500.00 for the car, and sold it for scrap for that same amount. So that is a break even.

[16]         Before licencing the vehicle in his own name, the Claimant says that he bought a used exhaust system from a scrap yard for $600.00 and paid someone $100.00 to weld it into place. These were cash transactions. Had I found any liability, this might have been recoverable despite the lack of any documentation, because I believe the Claimant. However, I find that this money was foolishly spent before the car was certified to be fit to be driven on the road.

[17]         The Claimant also seeks compensation for all of the trouble that he went to, and the stress that he has endured. The Claimant evidently does not know that general damages in this court are limited to $100.00.

[18]         The Defendant kept mentioning that she is owed another $300.00; however she did not file a counterclaim and cannot claim for this money in the context of this claim.

ORDER

[19]         Accordingly, for all of the above reasons the claim is dismissed.

Eric K. Slone, Small Claims Court Adjudicator