Love was lost between a Surrey furniture store and a client after a problem with the sale of a loveseat (couch) that the BC Civil Resolution Tribunal decided on.
In a small claims case initiated by the customer, the customer told the tribunal that he agreed to buy a reclining loveseat from Budget Furniture Land, but that after signing the contract, the furniture store changed the contract from a new couch to a floor display model.
The couch was valued at $1,900, and the client refused to accept the floor model, cancelling the contract. Despite the cancelled contract, he never got his money back and asked the tribunal to order the furniture store to reimburse him.
Budget Furniture Land stated that the client was aware he was purchasing a floor model and had some other concerns.
The Surrey furniture store said that the client wasn’t entitled to cancel the purchase after signing the contract and that the cancellation resulted in “significant financial losses for the company, including unsold inventory and the cost of a failed delivery.”
It wanted the tribunal to dismiss the client’s claims; unfortunately for the furniture store, that isn’t what happened.
The client visited Furniture Land on Aug. 13, 2023, when he agreed to purchase the couch, including delivery, for $1,900. The tribunal decision suggests that the client visited the store a few times, but during one of those visits, he learned he would receive a floor model and refused to accept it.
Rebutting the client’s account, Furniture Land insisted that the client only refused to accept the furniture when the delivery team arrived at the client’s home on Aug. 19.
The tribunal had a challenging task, considering that the submitted evidence was contradictory.
“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,” the tribunal decision notes.
The furniture store’s copy included the word “floor” in brackets, indicating that changes were made after both parties had signed the agreement.
“So, the applicant asks me to find the respondent altered their copy without his knowledge and then attempted to depend on it. I do,” the tribunal declared.
The furniture store was ordered to pay the client $2,025, which included $1,900 in debt and the remainder in tribunal fees.