Keizer v. Autoworld Superstore Alberta Ltd., (2003) 334 A.R. 179 (PC)

• Judge: Bridges, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 27, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Alberta
• Citations: (2003), 334 A.R. 179 (PC);2003 ABPC 23

Keizer v. Autoworld Superstore (2003), 334 A.R. 179 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. FE.029

Lisa Keizer (plaintiff) v. Autoworld Superstore Alberta Ltd. (defendant)

(P0290305588; 2003 ABPC 23)

Indexed As: Keizer v. Autoworld Superstore Alberta Ltd.

Alberta Provincial Court

Bridges, P.C.J.

January 27, 2003.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued the defendant automo­tive dealership for repayment of $6,995 plus GST which she paid for the purchase of a 1991 GMC Sierra half-ton truck. The plain­tiff said that the vehicle was unsafe and that it had failed two safety inspections.

The Alberta Provincial Court held that the defendant committed unfair practices under ss. 6(4)(a), (b), (c) and (e) of the Fair Trad­ing Act in relation to its representation that it had inspected the truck. The court declined to order rescission of the transaction and awarded the plaintiff damages of $900.

Consumer Law - Topic 1745

Sale of goods - Deceptive acts - Mislead­ing conduct or representations - The plain­tiff purchased a used half-ton truck from the defendant automo­tive dealership - The defendant's salesman told the plaintiff that the defen­dant had done an inspection on the truck - However, the plaintiff was not given either a Form 1 or a Form 2, which were called for pursu­ant to s. 43 of High­way Traffic Regulation No. 155/97 - Sub­sequent safety inspections revealed a num­ber of deficiencies - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the defendant committed unfair practices under ss. 6(4)(a), (b), (c) and (e) of the Fair Trading Act with respect to its representa­tion that the truck had been inspected and, by impli­cation, had met safety standards - See paragraphs 23 to 26.

Consumer Law - Topic 1745

Sale of goods - Deceptive acts - Mislead­ing conduct or representations - The plain­tiff bought a used half-ton truck from the defendant automotive dealership - Subse­quent safety inspections revealed a number of defi­ciencies - The plaintiff sued for repayment of the purchase price - The Alberta Provincial Court was not satisfied that the defendant had committed an unfair practice under s. 6(4) of the Fair Trading Act with respect to its representa­tion that the truck was fit for the purpose intended by the plaintiff (pulling a horse trailer) where: (1) the truck's ability to haul a horse trailer could have been tested as part of the test drive that the plaintiff per­formed; and (ii) a noise with respect to the engine and trans­mission should have been apparent on the test drive - See para­graphs 21 to 22.

Consumer Law - Topic 1804

Sale of goods - Breach - Remedies of buyer - Damages - [See Consumer Law - Topic 1805 ].

Consumer Law - Topic 1805

Sale of goods - Breach - Remedies of buyer - Rescission - On April 13, 2002, the plaintiff bought a 1991 half-ton truck from the defendant automotive dealership for $6,995 - Safety inspections on April 29 and May 22, 2002 revealed a number of deficiencies - The plaintiff sued for repay­ment of the purchase price - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the defendant committed unfair practices under ss. 6(4)(a), (b), (c) and (e) of the Fair Trading Act in relation to its representation that it had inspected the truck - However, the court declined to order rescission of the transaction where: (1) the truck was known to be 11 years old with a high kilometre reading and it could be expected to be very worn: (ii) the plaintiff's trade-in had been resold; (iii) the plaintiff did not try to repudiate the sale after the first safety inspection; and (iv) the plaintiff only tried to rescind the contract after the second safety inspection and by then she had put several thousand kilometres on the truck - The court awarded the plaintiff damages of $900 - See paragraph 17.

Sale of Goods - Topic 4118

Conditions and warranties - Implied or statutory terms as to quality or fitness - Exclusionary clause - Effect of - The plaintiff purchased a used half-ton truck from the defendant automotive dealership -The bill of sale stated that "5. This agree­ment contains the whole agreement between the parties in respect of this trans­action and there are no representations, warranties, terms, conditions or collateral agreements expressed, implied or statutory other than expressly set forth in this agree­ment 6. Used goods are not warranted by the vendor as to year, mileage, model or otherwise unless by authorized written warranty ... 9. Sales are final and pur­chaser expressly agrees there are no war­ranties expressed or implied except as noted herein" - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the exclusion clauses in the bill of sale excluded the implied warranty of fitness in s. 16 of the Sale of Goods Act - See paragraph 14.

Cases Noticed:

Syncrude Canada Ltd. et al. v. Hunter Engineering Co. and Allis-Chalmers Canada Ltd. et al., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 426; 92 N.R. 1; 57 D.L.R.(4th) 321; [1989] 3 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 14].

Pechout v. Potorocza (1998), 217 A.R. 377 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 18].

Basaraba v. St. Alberta Dodge Chrysler Ltd. et al., [2000] A.R. Uned. 318 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 26].

Director of Trade Practices (Alta.) v. Ed­anver Consulting Ltd., [1993] 6 W.W.R. 718; 10 Alta. L.R.(3d) 433 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 26].

Counsel:

Both parties were unrepresented.

This action was heard before Bridges, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on January 27, 2003.