Hfx Broadcasting Inc. v. Hussala's Urban Wear & Fashions

Hfx Broadcasting Inc. v. Hussala's Urban Wear & Fashions Court Small Claims Court Date 2009-05-13 Citation 2009 NSSM 28 Docket 309127 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Slone, Eric K. (Adjudicator) Document Type Decision Decision Content IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Cite as: Hfx Broadcasting Inc. v. Hussala’s Urban Wear & Fashions, 2009 NSSM 28 Claim No: 309127 BETWEEN: HFX BROADCASTING INC. Claimant - and - WAYNE DAVID, c.o.b. as Hussla’s Urban Wear & Fashions Defendant REASONS FOR DECISION BEFORE Eric K. Slone, Adjudicator Hearing held at Dartmouth, Nova Scotia on May 5, 2009 Decision rendered on May 13, 2009 APPEARANCES For the Claimant Sean Moreman, counsel For the Defendant self-represented BY THE COURT: [1] This claim seeks payment of $1,307.01 owing under a contract for radio air time for advertising. [2] The Defendant does not dispute that he entered into the contract to advertise his clothing business. He does not dispute that spots (commercials) aired. He believes he should not have to pay because, he says, there were delays in getting the appropriate spots on the air. It appears that much of the purpose of advertising was to promote a grand reopening of his business in a particular location. [3] The defence filed was thin in the extreme: it reads only “services contracted were not rendered.” Given that, the Claimant could not reasonably have anticipated the specific complaints that the Defendant would raise at trial. As such, the Claimant came prepared only with evidence to prove the existence of the contract and that the Defendant received the contracted for amount of spots. [4] I did my best to try to follow the Defendant’s confusing account of his troubles. Unfortunately his presentation was vague and rambling and much of it amounted to hearsay or speculation. [5] As best as I can understand, he took it upon himself to produce his own ads with the help of friends, rather than use the free services of the radio station to produce the ads. It appears there were problems with the ads he produced, which led to delays. One example was that his ad referred to the station as “one-o-three point five” when the proper name of the station is “one-o-three dot five.” For that reason alone it was not suitable for airing. In such instances, the station appears to have aired the only ads that they had, rather than the new ones. [6] The Defendant was exceptionally critical of his advertising rep at the station who, he says, did not return his phone calls promptly. He believed that someone should have been more attentive. That person was not in court to respond to this allegation. [7] To compound matters, it appears that the Claimant may not have sent invoices to the Defendant in the ordinary course of events. Some months later, the account was looked at, seen to be delinquent, and pursued by way of this claim. [8] The Defendant did not call any witnesses other than himself. I appreciate that he is a lay person, but in the end all I was left with was an extremely vague set of grievances that may or may not have amounted to a failure on the part of the Claimant to live up to its obligations. All litigants must understand that this is a court of law, and the adjudicator needs some convincing evidence upon which to base a finding, one way or the other. The Defendant is a businessman dealing with other businesses, such as the Claimant, and there is more expected of a business owner if he or she wishes to avoid responsibility for a business contract. [9] I feel some sympathy for the Defendant, but as a matter of evidence he gave me so little to go on that I feel compelled to say that, on balance, the Claimant has proved its claim and the Defendant owes the money. There will accordingly be a judgment for $1,307.01 plus costs of $87.06. Eric K. Slone, Adjudicator