Supplier Must Refund Buyer for Undelivered Custom Sign
📌 In brief
The Civil Resolution Tribunal ruled that a supplier must refund a customer for failing to deliver a custom sign within a reasonable time frame. The claimant ordered a custom awning sign but received no sign, leading to a refund of $2,219.28 plus interest and tribunal fees.
⚖️ Legal holding
A supplier is obligated to complete an order within a reasonable time frame, failing which the buyer may cancel the contract and seek a refund.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant is entitled to a refund after the respondent failed to deliver the agreed-upon service within a reasonable timeframe.
📚 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 supplier failed to complete the order within a reasonable time frame.
- The buyer continuously followed up for updates on the sign’s progress but received little to no response.
- The supplier provided incorrect graphics files that did not match the correct colors ordered.
- The supplier breached the agreement by failing to deliver the sign as promised.
- The buyer was entitled to cancel the contract and demand a refund after the supplier's repeated failures.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The supplier claimed they were working on the artwork, but this did not address the failure to deliver the correct sign.
- The buyer initially claimed pre-judgment contractual interest but did not provide evidence for the claimed rates.
- The supplier did not provide any documentary evidence or submissions to support their claims.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The claimant is entitled to a full refund of $2,219.28 plus interest and tribunal fees.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about a custom awning sign that was never delivered by the respondent.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the claimant because the respondent failed to deliver the sign within a reasonable time frame.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, sections 118 and 2, and the Court Order Interest Act were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the respondent failed to deliver the sign within a reasonable time frame, breaching the implied term of the agreement.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may be entitled to a refund if the supplier fails to deliver the goods within a reasonable time frame.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence included text message and email correspondence showing the claimant's continuous follow-ups with the respondent about the sign's progress.