Corporate Benefits 2000 Inc. v. Steele Mazda

Corporate Benefits 2000 Inc. v. Steele Mazda

The adjudicator found the parties intended the extended warranty to cover the lease term and that the dealer either breached that term or was negligent in failing to explain the promotion's effect; accordingly the dealer must pay the repair costs and the claimant was not required to purchase additional coverage.

Citation
2007 NSSM 65
Parties
Claimant: Corporate Benefits 2000 Inc.; Claimant: Carlos Rodrigues; Defendant: Steele Mazda; Defendant: Keith MacNeil
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Contract (lease) / Decision / Adjudication
Outcome
Judgment for Claimant Corporate Benefits 2000 Inc.; claim against Keith MacNeil dismissed on consent
Legal Topics
Lease Agreement, Extended Warranty, Promotion Inducement, Negligence, Damages
Source Language
English
Contract Tort Consumer Law Lease Agreement Extended Warranty Promotion Inducement Negligence 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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Corporate Benefits 2000 Inc.

Claimant

Carlos Rodrigues

Claimant

Steele Mazda

Defendant

Keith MacNeil

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Contract (lease) / Decision / Adjudication

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the extended warranty was intended to and formed part of the lease covering the full lease term
  2. 2 Whether the dealer breached the lease or was negligent by failing to explain the promotion's effect on warranty coverage
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was obliged to purchase additional warranty coverage to mitigate loss

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator found the parties intended the extended warranty to cover the lease term and that the dealer either breached that term or was negligent in failing to explain the promotion's effect; accordingly the dealer must pay the repair costs and the claimant was not required to purchase additional coverage.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Claimant Corporate Benefits 2000 Inc.; claim against Keith MacNeil dismissed on consent

Orders

  • Steele Mazda to pay $962.34 for the repair
  • Steele Mazda to pay costs to Claimant