IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

[1]           The facts in this matter generally are not contested.  Mr. Dionne purchased a vehicle from Mr. Krause in January of 2016, and took possession of it at that time.  The vehicle was described as a 2007 Ford F350 King Ranch diesel, although the parties agree that this is not completely accurate.  I will discuss the reasons for this shortly.  The purchase price was $14,000.  Mr. Dionne paid with a $10,000 cheque and $4,000 cash.  He only paid tax on the $10,000 in the amount of $1,200.

[2]           Mr. Dionne did a lien check, prior to purchase, on the VIN that was displayed on the dashboard, and found Mr. Krause to have clear title.

[3]           Approximately one month later the vehicle was stolen from the Dionne’s.  They reported it as stolen to the police and the vehicle was found approximately two weeks later, destroyed by fire.  The Dionnes reported it stolen to ICBC.

[4]           ICBC then investigated the vehicle and determined that it was stolen a number of years prior.  The vehicle had two VIN numbers on it.  One VIN, as noted before, was located on the dash board, and it was this VIN that appears on the transfer documents from Mr. Krause to Mr. Dionne.  This VIN appears to be in reference only to the cab of the vehicle.  There is no issue that Mr. Krause legally owned this part of the vehicle. 

[5]           ICBC then searched for a VIN on the chassis.  On the chassis they found a different VIN, one that belonged to a 2005 Ford Lariat gas engine pick up.  ICBC determined that the 2005 vehicle had been stolen and that they had paid out on that loss and as a result assumed ownership.

[6]           ICBC’s investigation determined that the vehicle was made from parts of a number of vehicles.  This was confirmed by the witness Curt De Boer who testified that he had built the truck.  Mr. De Boer’s company, C.D. Mechanical, had built the truck for Mr. Krause, at Mr. Krause’s request.  Mr. Krause was the boyfriend of Mr. De Boer’s daughter.

[7]           The only evidence I have is that neither Mr. De Boer, nor Mr. Krause, knew that the chassis was stolen.  Mr. De Boer says he bought the chassis from a private vendor and never checked its VIN number.  Mr. Krause says he knew that it was a vehicle made from a number of different trucks, but was not aware that the chassis was stolen.  This appears to be doubted by the Dionnes, but there is no evidence before me that either Mr. Krause or Mr. De Boer were aware of this.

[8]           The evidence is unclear on exactly what parts of the vehicle make up the chassis and therefore what parts specifically are owned by ICBC.  It is also unclear on what parts relate to the cab, which was legally transferred to Mr. Dionne.

[9]           Section 16 and 26(1) of Sale of Goods Act, [RSBC 1996] Chapter 410, (“Act”) applies.  These sections state as follows:

[10]        The Honourable Judge Watchuk, as she then was, succinctly stated in Wekan Holdings Ltd. v. I.C.B.C., [2002] B.C.J. No. 3362, at para. 17, that the transferee can take no better title than the transferor.  This means that Mr. Dionne could take no better title than the title of Mr. Krause.  Mr. Krause did not have title to the chassis because it was stolen.  Title in the chassis remained with ICBC, the last valid owner of the chassis. 

[11]        Mr. Krause, therefore, had no right to sell the chassis to Mr. Dionne as he was not its rightful owner.  Mr. Krause was, therefore, in breach of the contact of sale, as per s.16 (a) of the Act.  This section says a contract of sale has an implied condition that the seller has a right to sell the goods.  Mr. Krause was in breach of this condition because he did not have a right to sell the chassis.

[12]        The issue is then one of damages.  The evidence is that Mr. Dionne, as a result of not obtaining title in the vehicle from Mr. Krause, suffered a loss when the vehicle was stolen from Mr. Dionne.  ICBC claimed that Mr. Dionne was not the rightful owner of the vehicle and therefore was not entitled to be paid for the loss.

[13]        There remains the issue of whether Mr. Dionne should only be able to claim a portion of the purchase price from Mr. Krause as a result of the legal sale of the cab.  The cab was legally sold as Mr. Krause had legal title to this portion of the vehicle.  There was no evidence of what, if any, value the vehicle would have if Mr. Dionne had only purchased the cab.  Clearly it would not have fit the description of the property sold.  The parties were transferring a vehicle fit for the purpose of transportation.  A cab of a vehicle falls significantly short of that description.  In the circumstances I find that Mr. Dionne suffered a complete loss and the Defendant Mr. Krause is responsible for the full purchase price of the vehicle.

[14]        There will be judgment in favour of Dwain Dionne, against Jordan Krause, in the amount of the purchase price of $14,000, plus $1,200 for taxes paid, and the filing and service fees of $176, for a total of $15,376.