B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has dismissed a small claims suit from a man who wanted a $4,600 refund for a 1997 Mercedes car he bought for $200.
Arthur Cheung told tribunal member Leah Volkers that Yuen Ye Wong told him the car had not been used for over 10 years but was running and only needed a new battery.
“I find it unlikely that the respondent would have only asked $200 for a car in excellent condition, with low kilometres, when all it needed was a new battery,” Volkers said in an April 28 decision dismissing the claim. “I find it more likely than not that the respondent told the applicant that the car was not running, and did not misrepresent the car’s condition.”
Cheung said the car did not run after he replaced the battery, and he spent time and money trying to fix it.
He claimed the $4,600 for a refund of the vehicle’s purchase price, plus the costs for towing, a mobile mechanic and parts, and his own labour. He also said if Wong paid him the full amount of the claim, she could have the car back.
Wong said she told Cheung the car was not running, and made no guarantees that the car would work. She said Cheung agreed to purchase the non-running car for $200 “as-is.” She told the tribunal she doesn’t want the car back.
Volkers said it’s well-established that in the sale of used vehicles, the general rule is “buyer beware.”
“This means that a buyer is not entitled to damages, such as repair costs, just because the vehicle breaks down shortly after the sale,” Volkers said. “Rather, a buyer who fails to have the vehicle inspected is subject to the risk that they did not get what they thought they were getting and made a bad bargain. To be entitled to compensation, the buyer must prove fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of warranty, or known latent defect.”
She said Cheung needed to show that “buyer beware” should not apply because one of those conditions exists.
“I find the applicant alleges misrepresentation and breach of warranty,” Volkers said.
The tribunal said Cheung alleged Wong didn’t disclose previous car damage repairs in excess of $2,000 until the parties went to execute the vehicle transfer form.
“Based on the applicant’s own submissions, I find the applicant knew about the previous repairs before executing the transfer,” Volkers said.
She said Wong submitted she did not sell the car to Cheung in working condition, and that the only way to move it when Cheung came to inspect it was with a tow truck.
“(Wong) says that if the car had been in working condition, she would have sold it for more than $200,” Volkers ruled.
