Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute over whether the agreed sale price for the used Dodge Caravan was $7,400 as orally negotiated and allegedly first signed, or $9,999 as later shown in the written contract sent to the buyer.
• Alleged vitiated consent due to unilateral changes to key contractual terms (price, term, interest rate and added warranty) after the buyer signed and left without a copy of the contract.
• Failure by the merchant to provide a duplicate of the signed consumer contract, contrary to the Loi sur la protection du consommateur (LPC), raising issues of contractual form and proof.
• Use of subsequent documents and text messages (including the seller’s reference to “modifications”) as presumptions and corroborative evidence of misrepresentation and post-signature alteration of terms.
• Question of the merchant’s responsibility under consumer law despite the involvement of a third-party finance company and a credit intermediary.
• Assessment of an appropriate reduction of the consumer’s obligation under the LPC and Civil Code, taking into account the insurer’s indemnity after the vehicle was declared a total loss and the consumer’s use of the vehicle.

Factual background and transaction history
In early December 2023, the plaintiff, Houcine Ben Amar, was searching for a family minivan and found an online advertisement for a 2014 Dodge Caravan showing 123,000 km and a listed price of $7,900. The vehicle was being sold through Automobiles Collection, the trade name of the defendant, 9375-2913 Québec inc. The financing question arose immediately: when Mr. Ben Amar inquired by text if financing over 36 months was possible, he was referred to the website credit1234.com and told to fill out an online application so that a credit specialist could contact him. Shortly thereafter, he received a text stating that the vehicle was reserved for him and another message from “Express Prêt” in which an individual, Valérie Desbiens, introduced herself as the person handling his automobile financing.
On 7 or 8 December 2023, Mr. Ben Amar went to Automobiles Collection’s premises, where he dealt with Harold Couturier. According to his undisputed testimony, the parties negotiated a purchase price reduced from $7,900 to $7,400 to account for body repairs that needed to be done. They also allegedly agreed to financing at 9.99% interest over 36 months, with weekly deductions of about $53. At that time, he paid a total of $3,800 in two instalments ($2,000 initially and a further $1,800 when taking delivery) and took possession of the vehicle the same day. In the office, he signed various documents, including at least a “Consentement d’utilisation des renseignements personnels” identifying the merchant as Automobiles Collection. However, he left without any copy of the actual purchase contract, which he believed reflected the negotiated price and terms.

Emergence of the contractual dispute
Within a few days, when he realized he had not been given a copy of the contract, Mr. Ben Amar sent a text message to Mr. Couturier on 11 December 2023 asking for a copy of the contract and reporting that the vehicle’s air conditioning was not working. On 22 December 2023, he received a set of documents that revealed substantially different terms from what he alleged had been agreed. The new purchase contract, dated 7 December 2023, named Harold Couturier as the adviser and showed a sale price of $9,999, plus an extended warranty of $2,400, for a total of $14,255.75 including taxes, with a $2,000 amount payable on delivery. He also discovered a “Contrat de prêt d’argent” dated 8 December 2023, issued in favour of Lendcare Capital inc. as lender, bearing his reproduced signature. That document showed a financed amount of $13,154, a 6-year term, bi-weekly payments of $127.78, an interest rate of 14.90% and a total obligation of $19,933.68. The consumer thus faced a materially different financial commitment than the one he says he agreed to in person.
The buyer was surprised to see that the sale price had been increased from $7,400 to $9,999, that an extended warranty costing about $2,759.40 including taxes had been added, and that both the financing term and interest rate had been increased to 72 months and 14.90% respectively. When he contacted Mr. Couturier to protest, he was told that the discrepancies resulted from an “error” that would be corrected. In a detailed text message on 27 December 2023, he listed the needed corrections: restoring the sale price to $7,900 (or $7,400 as negotiated), changing the payment to $53 weekly, setting the term at 36 months and the rate at 9.99%. Mr. Couturier replied that his payment had been refunded, that they were working on the modifications despite being on vacation and that the business was closed until 8 January, promising to get back to him as soon as possible. No correction was ever made.

Consumer complaint and procedural history
On 5 January 2024, still without a corrected contract and after noticing that bi-weekly payments of $127.78 had already begun, Mr. Ben Amar sent a formal demand letter to Automobiles Collection. In it, he restated the facts: the initially advertised $7,900 Dodge Caravan, the negotiated price reduction to $7,400 due to needed repairs, and the agreed financing terms of 36 months at 9.99% with weekly $53 deductions. He explained that the documents now on file showed a higher sale price, longer term, higher interest rate and an added warranty that had never been discussed. He demanded cancellation of the contract, return of the vehicle, and reimbursement of his $2,000 deposit plus the two withdrawals of $127.78, for a total of $2,255.56. Receiving no satisfactory response, he instituted proceedings in the Small Claims Division of the Court of Québec on 24 January 2024, initially seeking annulment of the contract and reimbursement of the amounts paid (deposit plus three payments, totalling $2,382.95).
In January 2025, before the case was heard, the vehicle was involved in an accident and declared a total loss. The insurer paid $9,237.61 in respect of the vehicle. Because he could no longer offer to return the vehicle in exchange for contract cancellation, Mr. Ben Amar amended his claim. He now sought a reduction of the sale price and reimbursement of his out-of-pocket payments—namely the $2,000 deposit and 44 payments of $127.65—as well as $5,000 for damages, troubles and inconveniences. The defendant filed a contestation essentially stating that Automobiles Collection had used a subcontractor to arrange financing, that the plaintiff had dealt directly with “Harold Couturier de www.credit1234.com” for his $2,000 deposit, and that Automobiles Collection had never received that amount, inviting the plaintiff to verify to whom the cheque or funds had actually been given. The defendant also filed an application to force the intervention of “Gestion Crédit 1234 propriétaire : Valérie Desbiens et Harold Couturier”, but that third-party proceeding did not progress. On the hearing date, despite proper notice, no one appeared for 9375-2913 Québec inc. The case proceeded by default, on the basis of the plaintiff’s sworn testimony, documentary exhibits and corroborating witness evidence.

Key legal framework and consumer protection concepts
The court analysed the case under Quebec civil law and consumer protection legislation. On the burden of proof, it held that Mr. Ben Amar had, on the balance of probabilities, proved the essential allegations of his claim, relying in part on presumptions that were “graves, précises et concordantes.” These presumptions included the original online advertisement showing a $7,900 asking price, the subsequent negotiation to $7,400, and the later discrepancy with the $9,999 price in the written contract sent only after the buyer insisted on obtaining a copy. Under section 41 of the Loi sur la protection du consommateur (LPC), goods must conform to their advertising; that obligation extends not only to their functionality and conformity but also to the advertised price. The fact that the contract later produced to the buyer reflected a material price increase over the listing raised a strong consumer-law issue.
Furthermore, section 32 LPC obliges the merchant to provide the consumer with a duplicate of the signed contract immediately after signing. The court accepted the buyer’s evidence that no copy of the purchase contract was provided when he signed in the showroom. This failure, combined with the later appearance of a contract with dramatically less favourable terms, supported the inference that the merchant kept a signed signature page and subsequently prepared a different contract, using the consumer’s signature on the second page to validate altered terms. Text messages from Mr. Couturier acknowledging that “modifications” were being made to the price, term and interest rate further reinforced this inference.

Role of financing arrangements and third parties
A significant factual and legal dimension of the case was the involvement of third-party financing and credit intermediaries. Mr. Ben Amar had been directed to credit1234.com, from which he received communications from Valérie Desbiens of “Express Prêt.” The signed “Contrat de prêt d’argent” identified Lendcare Capital inc. as the lender and bore Mr. Couturier’s signature on its behalf. At the same time, in his correspondence and signature blocks, Mr. Couturier described himself as a “Spécialiste Crédit Automobile” associated with credit1234.com. This dual role—as dealership representative negotiating the sale and as credit specialist for the financing channel—created confusion as to who he actually represented and who bore responsibility for the altered contract terms.
The dealership attempted, in its written contestation, to distance itself from the $2,000 deposit by claiming that it had never received that amount and that the plaintiff had transacted directly with a subcontractor (credit1234.com / Harold Couturier). The court rejected this attempt to shift blame. It held that as the merchant party to a consumer contract, 9375-2913 Québec inc. owed legal obligations directly to the consumer under sections 2 and 10 LPC and could not exonerate itself by pointing to the existence of a financing contract with Lendcare or the involvement of a credit intermediary. For remedial purposes, the plaintiff was entitled to turn to the merchant for redress for the contractual and statutory breaches.

Consent, vitiated agreement and reduction of obligations
From a contract-law perspective, the court found that the buyer’s consent had been vitiated by error on essential elements of the contract—namely the sale price, financing term and interest rate, and the addition of an extended warranty that had not formed part of the negotiated bargain. Under articles 1400 and 1407 of the Code civil du Québec, a party whose consent has been vitiated by error on a determining element may obtain relief in the form of a reduction of its corresponding obligation, equivalent to the damages it would otherwise have been entitled to claim. Parallel to that civil-law remedy, section 272 LPC authorizes a consumer, in case of breach by the merchant of a statutory obligation, to seek a range of remedies including cancellation, restitution and reduction of obligations.
In this case, the original procedural posture was a request for cancellation and restitution. However, because the vehicle was later declared a total loss in an accident and the insurer paid an indemnity of $9,237.61, the court could no longer equitably unwind the sale on a simple give-back-the-car, get-back-your-money basis. It emphasized that there must not be an “enrichissement sans cause” in favour of the consumer: Mr. Ben Amar had both used the vehicle for a period and received an insurance payout for its loss. Those amounts had to be taken into account in shaping a fair monetary remedy.

Assessment of damages and final outcome
At the hearing, the plaintiff explained that he now effectively sought $12,616.60, broken down into 44 payments of $127.65 (totalling $5,616.50), the $2,000 deposit and $5,000 for moral/compensatory damages for troubles and inconveniences. The court found that the evidence of non-pecuniary harm was relatively weak and that the difficulties he experienced had been partially offset, albeit unintentionally, by the substantial indemnity paid by his insurer after the total loss of the vehicle. It also noted that he had enjoyed the use of the vehicle between the time of purchase and the accident. Exercising its judicial discretion and weighing the entire factual matrix, the court concluded that an overall reduction of his obligations in the amount of $6,000 was appropriate. That figure was calibrated to cover the approximate $2,599 difference between the negotiated $7,400 price and the $9,999 figure inserted into the later contract, along with the economic impact of the higher interest rate, longer term and the added extended warranty costing about $2,759.
In its formal disposition, the Court of Québec, Small Claims Division, partially allowed the claim. It condemned the defendant, 9375-2913 Québec inc., to pay Mr. Houcine Ben Amar $6,000, together with interest at the legal rate plus the additional indemnity provided for in article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec from 21 August 2025, and awarded him his court costs. The judgment does not set out a precise global figure for interest and costs, which depend on subsequent calculation and tariff, so the exact total monetary amount beyond the $6,000 principal cannot be determined from the text alone.