A Vancouver Island precise property agent has misplaced his bid to get effectively a deposit he made on a model new Ford Mustang that he meant to provide as a prize in a year-long contest in 2020.
Duncan provincial courtroom select JP MacCarthy dismissed the declare launched by Peter Andrew Sterczyk in the direction of DFS Motors Ltd., which operates as Island Ford.
Based mostly on MacCarthy’s June 21 willpower, Sterczyk conceived of the competitors – which he dubbed “Win My Journey” – in 2019. The idea was to promote his enterprise by stepping into anyone who achieved an precise property transaction with him proper right into a draw, which could give them a chance to win his automobile as a result of the prize.
“His plan was to build up a model new car with vendor financing in December 2019, use it all through 2020 after which draw the winner on Dec. 31, 2020, repay the financing steadiness owing and swap title to the winner in January 2021,” MacCarthy’s willpower reads.
Sterczyk reached out to Island Ford because of it was offering its private promotion on the time, known as “Mustangs at Worth,” which promised deep reductions on new Ford Mustangs.
The true property agent contacted Island Ford salesperson Abraham Lee, who in the end despatched him a window sticker for a automobile at one different dealership inside the Lower Mainland, which Lee proposed to build up for Sterczyk to purchase, in keeping with the selection.
Based mostly totally on the window sticker, Lee and Sterczyk agreed on a suggestion to purchase, and Sterczyk made a $2,500 deposit by financial institution card, MacCarthy’s willpower reads.
Though Lee did not inform Sterczyk which dealership the automobile may very well be coming from, the window sticker included the Automotive Identification Amount, which allowed Sterczyk to seek for the automobile and uncover it marketed on the net web site of Mainland Ford in Surrey.
Sterczyk noticed that the automobile listed on the net web site had additional choices than the window sticker listed, one factor MacCarthy concludeds in his willpower that neither Lee “nor each different guide” of Island Ford knew on the time Lee accepted Sterczyk’s deposit.
On account of the upgrades that had been made to the automobile at Mainland Ford, Lee educated Sterczyk that it was not obtainable on the $30,000 price stage that had been agreed upon, and began looking for totally different vehicles, in keeping with the courtroom willpower.
Sterczyk rejected three totally different vehicles with fewer choices, arguing that the settlement he made was to purchase the exact automobile with the VIN acknowledged on the distinctive window sticker.
In the end, he took Island Ford to courtroom over the issue.
Sterczyk’s declare sought the return of his deposit, along with damages for the alleged breach of contract, which his lawyer described in a requirement letter to Island Ford as a “bait and swap.”
After summarizing Sterczyk’s argument that he thought he was entitled to purchase the exact Mustang with its sudden upgrades on the agreed-upon price, MacCarthy rejected it.
“With the perfect of respect, I uncover that such reasoning has no profit,” he writes in his willpower.
“I am pretty positive that the Claimant would not be adopting that reasoning (and rightly so) if it turned out to be that the choices and tools described inside the automobile’s genuine window sticker had actually been far from the automobile or had been of lesser prime quality or fewer in numbers.”
“In numerous phrases, on the premise of this faulty reasoning, although the automobile being purchased by claimant may very well be of lesser prime quality or price than described inside the automobile’s genuine window sticker, the VIN may very well be absolutely decisive of the topic materials of the negotiations or any ensuing contract. In my view, the occasions did not attain such an settlement.”
In its place, the select concluded, the settlement the occasions reached involved the acquisition of a “stock” Mustang for $30,000. Thus, the dealership’s efforts to find a acceptable different automobile constituted successful of its obligations beneath the contract, fairly than a “bait and swap” or totally different deceptive product sales tactic.
“It was the claimant who wrongly and unreasonably rejected these totally different Mustangs and introduced on the breach,” MacCarthy writes.
The select dismissed Sterczyk’s declare in its entirety and awarded some courtroom costs to Island Ford.