Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Buyer alleged misrepresentation regarding the condition of a used truck engine sold "without warranty."

• Seller claimed the engine was rebuilt in 2019, but evidence showed it was at the end of its life at the time of sale.

• The Court found the seller failed to disclose crucial information, violating the duty of good faith and transparency.

• Text evidence and expert testimony undermined the seller's version and supported a finding of dol (fraud).

• Buyer successfully demonstrated that its consent to purchase was vitiated by misleading representations.

• Full reimbursement for engine repair costs was awarded as direct and foreseeable damages resulting from the misrepresentation.

Facts of the case
Entreprises KG & Fils inc. (KG) purchased a heavily used 2000-model truck from Asphalte Cloutier inc. (AC) in September 2022 for $24,000. The advertisement and seller’s representations indicated that the engine had been rebuilt in 2019. After the sale, KG discovered severe engine problems. Upon inspection, it became clear that the engine had not been properly rebuilt or was in a state inconsistent with a 2019 refurbishment. KG proceeded with repairs and later claimed $13,266.44 in damages for the cost of fixing the engine. Although AC sold the vehicle “without warranty,” KG argued that the seller had made false representations and failed to disclose key information, vitiating its consent.

Misrepresentation and the limits of ‘sold without warranty’
The Court began by affirming that a sale “without warranty” does not release a seller from liability for fraud, misrepresentation, or failure to disclose material facts. Citing article 1401 C.c.Q., the judge explained that dol can arise from silence or omissions where a seller knows or should know information crucial to a buyer’s decision. The Court stressed the obligation of good faith, transparency, and cooperation in the pre-contractual phase, as articulated in articles 6, 7, and 1375 C.c.Q.

Evidence showed that the seller, through its representatives, had assured KG that the engine was in good shape and had been rebuilt. However, this statement was not supported by documentation, and no invoices for engine work were provided, despite promises to do so. Messages between the parties further indicated that AC was aware of the engine’s condition and made no efforts to inspect or address the buyer’s complaints after the sale. The Court concluded that AC likely knew the engine was deteriorated and failed to disclose this fact, amounting to dol.

Evaluation of evidence and credibility
Testimony from KG’s president, Mr. Garand, and documentary evidence including repair photos and invoices were considered credible. A witness from Canweld Diesel inc., who had done work for AC in 2018, testified that the engine’s condition shown in the photographs was inconsistent with a rebuild in either 2018 or 2019. Additionally, the truck had undergone over $11,000 worth of repairs just seven months prior to the sale, which raised doubts about the timing and quality of any previous engine work.

The seller's failure to follow up on the buyer’s complaints or inspect the vehicle post-sale, despite being given the opportunity, further supported the conclusion that AC had attempted to offload a vehicle it knew had serious defects.

Outcome
The Court ruled in favor of Entreprises KG & Fils inc., finding that its consent had been vitiated by misrepresentation. It awarded the full claimed amount of $13,266.44, plus legal interest from November 22, 2022, and court costs of $325. The decision reinforces that a disclaimer of warranty does not protect a seller who fails to act transparently or honestly, and that buyers are entitled to rely on factual representations when deciding to contract.