If you are involved in disputes relating to contract disputes, congested estates, damages, debt collection, etc., get in touch with us. MacMillan Tucker & Mackay offers a wide range of civil litigation services to the clients in Surrey and surrounding areas. Our litigators advise and discuss the outcome of your claim before going ahead with an action plan.
To know more about civil litigation services, please go through the articles below.
That’s Not What I Bought
Betty purchased the vehicle, signing a Purchase Agreement which contained no assurances about the quality of the car and had a clause stating that there were no “representations or warranties, express or implied, statutory or otherwise” that weren’t in the Agreement.
Over the next six months, Betty had many issues with her new Acme Adventure. She had to refuel daily and take it to the dealership for repairs twelve times. When she had to take the car in for a thirteenth repair, she had had enough. She contacted Sean to demand that he take the car back and give her a refund. When he refused, Betty decided to sue for what she paid for the vehicle. Sean responded saying the Agreement contained no representations or warranties she could rely upon and that Betty had the car for six months so couldn’t return it.
If You Were the Judge, How Would You Decide?
Under BC’s Sale of Goods Act, there are statutorily implied conditions of both quality and fitness when a product is sold to a consumer. The Judge found that Sean’s business was selling vehicles and that Betty informed him of what she needed in a new car. Given Betty’s confessed lack of knowledge of vehicles generally, she had relied on what Sean told her about the car. Because Betty had informed Sean of what she would be using the car for, and he sold her a car that was not reasonably fit for that purpose, there was a breach of an implied condition.
The Judge went on to consider what amounted to normal use of a car and the circumstances surrounding the sale. He found that given the number of repairs necessary in the first six months, the implied condition of durability had been breached. Sean argued that Betty had the vehicle for too long to complain, but the Judge found that she was only giving the car a reasonable chance to perform. Sean was ordered to accept Betty’s return of the car and reimburse her the price she had paid.
Cassandra Douma is an articled student in Cloverdale with the firm MacMillan Tucker at 5690 – 176A Street, Cloverdale (Surrey), B.C. At MacMillan Tucker, lawyers are available to answer questions about wills and estates, ICBC claims, personal injury, professional negligence, family matters and other issues. If you require legal assistance, please call (604) 574-7431 to book an appointment.
IT’S THE LAW – By Corey J. Bow
What would you do if you were the Judge? Judges decide the facts based on evidence put before them, and then apply the law. Here is a fact pattern. How would you decide who was at fault? Fact patterns similar to this one are often presented in court and assessed by Judges. Test your judgment!
TWITTER GETS SUED
One thing that is not protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or under Canadian Law is defamation. If one person publishes untrue defamatory remarks about another and it causes harm, then they can be sued.
In the United States, Twitter has protection from being sued for defamation if one of its users publishes defamatory comments. Twitter and the other tech giants were given this protection because they argued that they were merely platforms of communication, somewhat like the phone company. The Vancouver Sun or the New York Times can be sued for defamation if they publish defamatory remarks.
In Canada, so far, we do not have a similar protection for social media. This brings us to our case: Mr. Guistra, a successful Vancouver businessman, sued Twitter for defamation in the BC courts. A group of people had made allegedly defamatory remarks against Mr. Guistra on Twitter and Mr. Guistra wished to hold Twitter responsible for those remarks.
Twitter argued that BC was the incorrect jurisdiction and wanted to move the case to California so that they could continue to have the protection of the American Law. Mr. Guistra argued that the broadcasting of the defamation occurred in BC, he had connection to BC, and many Twitter users saw the offending remarks in BC. The question was: Where is the best place to hear the case?
What would you do if you were the Judge?
Ultimately the Court found that BC had jurisdiction to hear the case and it could go forward in BC. The Court did not decide if there was defamation or any of the other issue of the case. It may be an open question as to what Law is used in the BC case, but it will be interesting to follow this case to see if a tech giant can be held responsible for what it publishes.
Corey J. Bow is a lawyer who practices in Cloverdale with the firm MacMillan Tucker at 5690 – 176A Street, Cloverdale (Surrey), B.C. At MacMillan Tucker, lawyers are available to answer questions about wills and estates, ICBC claims, personal injury, professional negligence, family matters and other issues. If you require legal assistance, please call 604-574-7431 to book an appointment.
IT’S THE LAW–By Cassandra Douma
What would you do if you were the Judge? Judges decide the facts based on evidence putbefore them, and then apply the law. Here is a fact pattern. How would you decide whowas at fault? Fact patterns similar to this one areoften presented in court and assessed byJudges. Test your judgment!
Salesman Sal owned a used car dealership and had sold a car to a customer. Salesman Sal instructed one of his staff, Employee Eric, to detail the vehicle before the buyer picked it up. While he was detailing the car, Employee Eric was called away to take a phone call and left the car in the lot with the keys in the ignition and the engine running. Theo Thief happened to be walking by the lot at that time and saw his chance. Theo Thief hopped in the car and sped away erratically, crashing into Innocent Irene’s vehicle soon after. Theo Thief fled the scene after the accident and was never identified. Innocent Irene was hurt in the collision, and because she did not know Theo Thief’s identity, she sued Salesman Sal’s company and Employee Eric for damages.
Innocent Irene alleged that Employee Eric was negligent in allowing the car to be stolen and be involved in the collision, and that Salesman Sal’s company was responsible for Employee Eric’s actions and their consequences.
What would you do if you were the Judge?
Theo Thief was clearly at fault for the collision for driving in an unsafe manner. Whether Employee Eric was partially responsible was dependant on whether the theft andTheo Thief’s actions were reasonably foreseeable, as a consequence of his leaving the vehicle running and unattended.
The judge held that Employee Eric had been careless, and it was reasonably foreseeable that if vehicles are left unlocked with keys in the ignition, they will be stolen or moved by people who are not authorized to move them. Any damage naturally resulting from the theft would have been foreseeable, for example the temporary or permanent loss of the car.
However, the judge went on to find that it was not reasonably foresee able that Theo Thief would drive the car into Innocent Irene’s vehicle as such a result would not ordinarily follow from a theft and the collision would not be a natural and probable result of the theft.
The judge dismissed the claims against Employee Eric and Salesman Sal, holding thatTheo Thief was the sole party responsible for Innocent Irene’s injuries.
Cassandra Doumais a lawyer who practices in Cloverdale with the firm MacMillan Tuckerat 5690–176AStreet, Cloverdale (Surrey), B.C. At MacMillan Tucker, lawyers areavailable to answer questions about wills and estates, ICBC claims, personal injury,professional negligence, family matters and other issues. If you require legal assistance,please call (604) 574-7431 to book an appointment.