A BC Civil Resolution Tribunal case weighed the issue of “buyer beware” and a claim of “misrepresentation” after a van bought on Facebook in Victoria broke down on the way home from the sale.
Nina Gilbert filed the suit with the CRT after buying a 1995 Chevrolet G20 van from Bryce Quirk in August 2022 after seeing an ad on Facebook Marketplace.
In the CRT decision, Gilbert said the van broke down “15 minutes” after she left Quirk’s home, due to transmission problems.
“Miss Gilbert says Mr. Quirk misrepresented the van’s condition,” says the CRT decision, adding that Gilbert wanted a refund of $3,800, which is the price she paid for the van ($4,300) minus what she sold it for ($500).
Quirk responded that he “never misrepresented the van and that the transmission failure is not his responsibility, given the van’s age, mileage, and recent work done,” reads the CRT decision.
The rules of “buyer beware” normally apply in such a case, said the CRT, unless the condition of a product is “misrepresented” by the seller.
Gilbert ended up having her claim dismissed, a warning to other people planning on buying a vehicle in a private sale.
The van in question was 27 years old and had been driven approximately 260,000 kilometres.
The ad on Facebook said it had a “new transmission,” according to the CRT decision.
The mileage became an issue in the case because the transfer document said 260,000 miles – not kilometres like it did in the ad.
Quirk said the error was an innocent one.
“Mr. Quirk pointed out that Miss Gilbert inspected the vehicle herself, and would have been able to see the mileage on her own,” says the CRT decision.
“I agree. Miss Gilbert says she did a ‘thorough inspection’ of the vehicle, and I find that if Mr. Quirk had inadvertently put km instead of miles in the ad, she could have easily discovered that error before purchase.”
Another key to dismissing Gilbert’s claims is that she did not test drive the van or have a mechanic inspect it.
“Miss Gilbert has not explained why she did not test drive the van prior to purchasing it, or have an inspection done, while Mr. Quirk says she was given ample time to do so,” reads the CRT decision.
The CRT said an inspection would have likely helped because the van had a history of transmission issues. Quirk provided Gilbert with invoices showing there had been extensive work on the transmission previously.
“I do not find Mr. Quirk’s statement that the transmission was ‘rebuilt’ was a misrepresentation in the circumstances,” reads the CRT decision. “I find Mr. Quirk was transparent about the van’s condition … nor did he make false or reckless statements about its condition.”
In the end, the CRT dismisses all claims.
“Miss Gilbert says she drove about 15 minutes before the van broke down,” says the CRT decision.
“So, I find the van was reasonably roadworthy at the time of purchase. Considering its age, very high mileage, and unknown condition, I find a mechanical problem could have happened at any time. I find Miss Gilbert has not proven the van, or its transmission, were not reasonably durable, in all of the circumstances.”
READ MORE:
Do you have a story tip? Email: chris.campbell@blackpress.ca.
Follow us on and and like us on
