VadeLab
AllowedCivil Resolution Tribunal (British Columbia) — Small Claims·

Supplier Entitled to Payment for Goods Supplied Under Contract

Case No.

📌 In brief

In a recent small claims case, the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) ruled that a supplier is entitled to payment for goods supplied under a contract if the recipient fails to pay the invoice. The CRT ordered the recipient to pay the full invoice amount plus interest and CRT fees.

⚖️ Legal holding

A supplier is entitled to payment for goods supplied under a contract if the recipient fails to pay the invoice.

Topics

contract breachsmall claims

Provisions

Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, s. 118Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, s. 2Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, s. 49Court Order Interest Act

📚 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.

⚖️ View on the official court website ↗

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The supplier provided evidence of the contract and delivery, including an invoice and signed delivery slip.
  • The recipient did not provide any submissions or documentary evidence to dispute the claim.
  • The amount claimed included a reasonable charge for a pallet and applicable tax.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The recipient's lack of response or evidence was not considered as a valid defense.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about whether the respondent owed money for goods supplied by the claimant.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided in favour of the claimant because the evidence showed that the parties had a contract for the supply and delivery of goods, and the respondent failed to pay the invoice.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Civil Resolution Tribunal Act sections 118, 2, and 49, and the Court Order Interest Act were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the evidence showing that the parties had a valid contract for the supply and delivery of goods, and the respondent's failure to pay the invoice.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the person who brought the case, the claimant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

This means that if someone supplies goods under a contract and the recipient fails to pay the invoice, the supplier may be entitled to payment including interest and CRT fees.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence that mattered included email correspondence, a signed delivery slip, the invoice, and correspondence about the overdue account.

Official source: Civil Resolution Tribunal (British Columbia) — Small Claims this page does not reproduce the decision; it links to the court's own publication. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Civil Resolution Tribunal (British Columbia) — Small Claims (© Province of British Columbia). VadeLab reproduces no part of the decision text; the summary above is VadeLab's own material. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.
Supplier Entitled to Payment for Goods Supplied - Civil | VadeLab