Décision

[1]        Jeffrey Brian Cochrane is claiming damages from Samsung Electronics Canada inc. (Samsung) in the amount of $1,059.48.  His claim is based on the legal warranty provided for in articles 37 and 38 of Consumer Protection Act[1] (C.P.A.). 

[2]        Samsung does not deny liability but submits that it made an acceptable offer of settlement. Alternatively, Samsung pleads that the damages claimed should be calculated differently.

THE FACTS

[3]        On March 16^th, 2008, Mr. Cochrane purchased a new flat screen television set from a retailer. The sale price was $1,288.77 plus tax. He also purchased an extended warranty. This warranty is no longer relevant since the retailer has since declared bankruptcy.

[4]        Samsung offered a two-year contractual warranty on this television. When the television ceased operating after 3 ½ years, Mr. Cochrane had it evaluated by an accredited service provider. The repairs were estimated at $465.77.

[5]        In a letter dated August 31^st, 2011, Mr. Cochrane demanded Samsung either replace or repair the television. He invokes articles 37 and 38 of the C.P.A.:  

37. Goods forming the object of a contract must be fit for the purposes for which goods of that kind are ordinarily used.

38. Goods forming the object of a contract must be durable in normal use for a reasonable length of time, having regard to their price, the terms of the contract and the conditions of their use.

[6]        Samsung responded by a letter dated September 14^th, 2011, in which its states:

At the time that you experienced some problems with the above mentioned television on/or around August 08^th, 2011, the manufacture warranty (2 years) was already expired.

At Samsung we respect the legal warranty. However for your particular situation taking into account the value of your purchase price and consumption time, we can offer you the parts only and you will be responsible for the labour.

                                                                                       (Reproduced as drafted)

[7]         Mr. Cochrane refused this offer.

THE CLAIM

[8]         Mr. Cochrane evaluated his claim as follows (in his letter of August 31st, 2011):

The denial on Samsung's part of their responsibility also creates great uncertainly in my ability to obtain reimbursement for any repair costs I incur, as well as any future claims I may have should other problems arise in the near term. I disagree with Samsung's position that this television has exceeded its reasonable life, as a 3.5-year-old television which I expected to last at least 10 years should have at least 65% of its useful life remaining. Though I was prepared to repair the television, I am not willing to invest the additional money with no guarantee of recovering my outlay. As such, my claim is based on a price reduction of 65% of the original purchase price of $1,454.70, which comes to $945.55.

                                                                                                (Emphasis added)

[9]           At trial, Samsung does not deny its liability. However, in it view, the residual value of the television should not be 65% but rather 30%.

[10]        Samsung adds that a similar television retails today at the price of approximately $600. Therefore, granting Mr. Cochrane's claim would in fact allow him to purchase a television of near double the value.

[11]        The Court does not agree with this argument. The damages suffered by Mr. Cochrane must be evaluated at the time when Samsung was put on demand to honour the legal warranty and not at the day of trial. The evolution of technology and market prices should not be used to Samsung's benefit.

[12]        Also, the 5 year life-time of the television as proposed by Samsung is insufficient. It should also noted that this is a new position put forward at trial. Earlier, Samsung was of the opinion that the 3½ year period Mr. Cochrane used this television was in fact the expected life time. In absence of expert witness to prove either of these propositions, Mr. Cochrane's evaluation is reasonable.

[13]        The retail price of a television was, according to the bill of sale, $1,288.77 (before taxes). Applying the residual value to this purchase price, Mr. Cochrane's claim for $837.70 will be granted.

[14]        Mr. Cochrane also claimed the cost of the evaluation paid to Samsung's accredited technicians ($113.93). This is a damage stemming directly from Samsung's refusal to respect its warranty. It is also a damage that was entirely foreseeable.

[15]        At trial, Samsung requested that the television set be remitted to it. Mr. Cochrane agrees.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:

GRANTS, in part, the application;

CONDEMNS Samsung Electronics Canada inc. to pay to Jeffrey Brian Cochrane the sum of  $951.63 plus legal interest and the additional indemnity provided for in article 1619 of the Civil code of Quebec since August 31^st, 2011;

ORDERS Jeffrey Brian Cochrane, as undertaken, to remit to Samsung Electronics Canada inc. the 42 inch flat screen television model HPT4254X;

CONDEMNS Samsung Electronics Canada inc. to pay the legal costs in the amount of $100.