Jing v. Chapman

The defendant unilaterally changed an essential term of the services (mandatory online/Zoom substitution for in-person make-up lessons) after the contract commenced; that change constituted a breach of contract which disentitles the defendant to rely on her no-refund policy and entitles the claimant to restitution of the October fee, the late fee, a pro rata refund of prepaid materials and court filing costs.

Citation: 2020 NSSM 32
Parties: Claimant: Ji Xiao Jing; Defendant: Adrianne Chapman
Court: Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 5 February 2020
Procedural Posture: Small Claims Contract / Hearing/decision
Outcome: Claim allowed in part; Defendant ordered to pay claimant $540.70 forthwith.
Legal Topics: Refunds, Breach of Contract, Change of Terms, Remedies, Damages
Source Language: English

Contract Law Consumer Law Refunds Breach of Contract Change of Terms Remedies Damages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6

Parties

Ji Xiao Jing

Claimant

Adrianne Chapman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Contract / Hearing/decision

Legal Issues

1 Whether a binding contract existed between the parties for in-person music lessons
2 Whether the defendant unilaterally changed an essential term of the contract (method of delivery/makeup lessons)
3 Whether the defendant's change constituted a breach of contract entitling the claimant to a refund

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; Defendant ordered to pay claimant $540.70 forthwith.

Orders

Defendant to pay Claimant $540.70 forthwith (comprising $300.00 October tuition, $15.00 late fee, $126.00 materials refund and $99.70 filing fee).
No ruling made on discrimination allegations; such matters belong to human rights fora.