A Richmond furniture company has been having a tough time of it lately in the courts, with yet another legal ruling going against it.
Yaletown Interiors has been ordered to refund a customer his $5,000 deposit put down last year for furniture bought in from the Bridgeport Road showroom.
The Richmond News reported last week how Yaletown lost its bid at a Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) to recoup $2,000 from a customer after it delivered the wrong beds to her home.
In the latest CRT case, the customer, a Richard Kengni, paid just over $5,000 in a deposit for around $10,000 worth of furniture last April, which the company said would take three to four months to get from the manufacturer.
But a week later, Kengni changed his mind and returned to Yaletown to cancel the order and request his deposit be returned, despite the transaction being described as “final sale.”
Yaletown referred to the “final sale” element of the transaction, but Kengni claimed he was entitled to a refund under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA).
Tribunal member ruled in favour of customer
CRT member Leah Volkers agreed with the customer and duly ordered Yaletown to refund the deposits paid.
In a civil proceeding, such as a CRT, the applicants need only prove their claims on a balance of probabilities (meaning more likely than not).
Volkers, in her decision, acknowledges that the signed furniture order invoice does say that all sales are final.
“Despite this, the applicants say they are entitled to a refund because the parties’ contract is a future performance contract that does not comply with BPCPA sections 19 and 23,” added Volkers.
As the furniture was “undisputedly to be supplied after the contract was made, I find that the parties entered into a future performance contract.”
The question, explained Volkers, is whether the applicants could cancel the contract under the BPCPA.
“Sections 19 and 23(2) require future performance contracts to contain certain information. Section 23(5) says that a consumer may cancel a future performance contract by giving notice of cancellation to the supplier not later than 1 year after the date the consumer receives a copy of the contract, if the contract does not contain the information required in sections 19 and 23(2).
“While the contract contains some of the information required under BPCPA section 19, including the total price under the contract, it does not include details of other costs payable by the consumer including taxes as required by section 19(g).”
The contract, Volkers continued, also “does not include the supply date, or the date on which the supply of the goods will be complete, as required by BPCPA section 23(2).”
Yaletown argued that it provided a “package price that includes GST,” adding that it wasn’t customary to provide supply dates in its contracts.
Volkers noted that the customer was verbally informed of an estimated timeline when they purchased the furniture.
Mandatory BPCPA provisions were missing from contract: Tribunal member
“However, the BPCPA provisions are mandatory, so despite these submissions, I find that the contract does not comply with some of the mandatory BPCPA provisions in sections 19 and 23(2),” wrote Volkers.
“The parties agree that Mr. Kengni attended at the respondent’s store on April 12, 2022, and asked to cancel the contract. I find this cancellation request was in time under BPCPA section 23(5).
“BPCPA section 27 says that if a consumer cancels a contract, the supplier must refund to the consumer all money received, without deduction, within 15 days after the notice of cancellation has been given.”
