Refund Request for Defective Scooter Denied by Civil Resolution Tribunal
📌 In brief
The claimant bought a mobility scooter and later requested a full refund, claiming it was defective. The respondent argued the scooter was not defective and offered to repair it free of charge. The Civil Resolution Tribunal reviewed the evidence and concluded the claimant did not provide enough proof that the scooter was defective, leading to the dismissal of the refund request.
⚖️ Legal holding
A seller is not obligated to provide a refund for a product that is not proven to be defective under the terms of the Sale of Goods Act.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant sought a refund for a defective mobility scooter, but failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the scooter's defectiveness.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The tribunal has jurisdiction because the claimant lives in British Columbia and the scooter was shipped there to complete the sale.
- The scooter was reasonably fit for its purpose because the claimant did not allege she was unable to use it as a scooter.
- The claimant did not prove the scooter was not of merchantable quality when purchased, as she alleged no issues before December 2025.
- The scooter was reasonably durable with normal use, as it still operated even after suffering damage to the seat.
- The claimant unreasonably rejected offers to repair the scooter at no cost, even though an authorized person would perform the work.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The claimant's argument that the scooter was defective if damaged by "standard airline handling" was speculative.
- The claimant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the cause of the scooter's issues.
- The claimant did not prove the respondent misrepresented the scooter's durability for air travel.
- The scooter's warranty did not provide the claimant with the option of a refund.
- The respondent's claim for dispute-related expenses was dismissed because they were not directly related to the CRT process.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Civil Resolution Tribunal dismissed the claimant's request for a full refund of a mobility scooter, finding insufficient evidence of defectiveness.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided against the claimant, stating that the claimant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the scooter was defective.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Sale of Goods Act, s. 18 was applied to determine the implied conditions of the sale of goods.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most critical argument was the claimant's inability to provide sufficient evidence proving the scooter was defective under the terms of the Sale of Goods Act.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the claimant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have strong evidence to prove the defectiveness of a product before seeking a refund.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment mentions emails, inspection reports, and the claimant's statements regarding the scooter's condition, but notes that the claimant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the scooter was defective.