Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• A commercial buyer alleged that a wood planer sold to it was defective and caused visible damage to its wood boards.
   
• Conflicting testimony arose over whether a smaller replacement planer was meant as a temporary or permanent substitute.
   
• No documentary evidence, such as emails or texts, was presented to corroborate either party's account of repair discussions.
   
• Quantification of the buyer's claimed inconvenience damages lacked sufficiently clear and precise proof.
   
• Mitigation of damages became a central issue, since the buyer left a replacement part unused rather than repairing the substitute equipment.
   
• Storage, depreciation, and transport costs claimed in the seller's cross-demand were unsupported by any documentary record.
   

Facts of the case

Maisons modulaires Mont-Carmel inc. purchased various woodworking equipment from 9010-6279 Québec inc., doing business as Général Surplus 2000 inc., in April 2023, including a 20-inch spiral-cutterhead 5HP King-brand planer for $5,748.74. Soon after use began, the buyer found that the planer left marks and damaged wood boards. The seller's president, Alain Lemire, retrieved the 20-inch planer and left a smaller 15-inch Shop Fox-brand planer in its place. That replacement broke after only a few hours of use, though the seller supplied a free replacement part. When the seller failed to respond to a formal demand letter seeking a functional 20-inch planer, the buyer sued, seeking return of the 20-inch planer and $1,500 in damages for the inconvenience of operating without proper equipment. The buyer offered to return the 15-inch planer still in its possession. The seller disputed the allegations, blaming improper use by the buyer's staff, and filed a cross-demand for $2,670 in storage costs tied to the repossessed 20-inch planer.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The dispute centred on the seller's obligation under the Civil Code of Québec to sell goods free of defects and fit for their intended use. The court also applied the buyer's corresponding duty to mitigate damages once informed of a problem. In fixing the remedy owed, the court invoked article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, which allows for an additional indemnity on top of legal interest.

Reasoning and analysis

The court found that the 20-inch planer was defective, since the evidence showed it damaged wood boards, and noted that the seller itself had accepted to take the unit back once shown the damage. Faced with conflicting accounts about whether the smaller planer was a temporary or permanent fix, and about whether a rubber roller could replace the metal one causing the marks, the court found no documentary evidence supporting either side's version. It preferred the buyer's account, reasoning it was corroborated by the unanswered formal demand letter and by the implausibility that a business would permanently accept a $4,100 planer as a substitute for one it had paid $4,999 for. Given the time elapsed and the uncertainty over whether the roller could be fixed, the court concluded that returning the 20-inch planer was not a workable remedy, and that annulling the sale was more appropriate. On the buyer's damages claim, the court held that the $1,500 figure was not established with sufficiently clear and precise evidence, and separately noted the buyer failed to mitigate its loss by leaving the replacement part unused rather than repairing the substitute planer. Turning to the seller's cross-demand, the court rejected each head of loss: the storage fees and depreciation lacked documentary support, the transport costs were never raised when the seller agreed to retrieve the unit, and time spent preparing the file was an ordinary litigation burden not compensable as damages. The court added that any losses the seller did incur flowed from its own failure to supply a defect-free planer in the first place.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court allowed the claim in part. Maisons modulaires Mont-Carmel inc. was the successful party: the sale of the 20-inch planer was annulled, and the seller was ordered to reimburse $5,748.74, plus legal interest and the additional indemnity under article 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, running from the date of judgment. The seller was also ordered to pay $182 in court filing fees, bringing the buyer's principal recovery to $5,930.74. The court took note of the buyer's offer to return the 15-inch Shop Fox planer and authorized the seller to retrieve it at its own expense, on 48 hours' notice and no later than ten days after full payment of the amounts owed. The buyer's $1,500 damages claim and the seller's $2,670 cross-demand were both dismissed.