Two Surrey door companies slammed it out in B.C. Supreme Court in New Westminster.
An open and shut case? You be the judge.
Thabel Doors sued Extreme Doors Ltd., commencing its civil action on April 25, 2023.
The defendant applied to have a default judgment that was granted on Oct. 19, 2023 set aside and be granted an opportunity to file a response to the Notice of Civil Claim filed by Thabel Doors, which manufactures and sells exterior and interior doors. Gurpreet Thabel is Thabel’s manager, and Dalbag Singh Grewal is the owner and operator of Extreme Doors.
Justice Trevor Armstrong dismissed Extreme’s application to set aside the judgment. “I find that the plaintiff acted responsibly to ensure the defendant was informed that the judgment had been obtained and assessment of the damages was proceeding,” the judge decided. “In the result, I have not been persuaded to exercise the Court’s discretion to set aside the judgment at this time.
Armstrong heard that in June 2021, Thabel stored some equipment at Extreme’s premises at 13055 84 Ave. on the understanding Extreme could use it. He noted in his Feb. 29 reasons for judgment that the equipment remained on Extreme’s premises until March 2022, when Extreme orally agreed to buy the equipment from Thabel for $157,494.75, a sum for which Thabel issued an invoice on March 2, 2022.
“The defendant contends that he received assurances from Mr. Thabel, the manager of the plaintiff that the agreed price was ‘much lower than the current market price of the equipment,’” the judge noted. “Before and after agreeing to purchase the equipment the defendant used the equipment in its business. There is controversy in the affidavit evidence concerning the terms of three other oral agreements. I will not address the details of those agreements, save to say that the defendant contends it has a set-off because of other promises made by the plaintiff.”
READ ALSO: Judge denies City of Surrey’s petition against property owner
READ ALSO: Pedestrian in Surrey crosswalk crash lobbied city hall to install it
Armstrong said these involved an agreement the defendant would be allowed to use the equipment without cost, that the plaintiff would pay one-half of the monthly rent and utilities and other expenses and be responsible for care, repair and maintenance of the equipment, that the plaintiff agreed to take the equipment back and return the defendant’s payment of $80,000, and that Grewal loaned money to Thabel which has not been repaid.
Grewal, however, contends this was a personal loan, not payment for the equipment. He also claims there is a chain missing from his premises that Thabel removed. He asked for a court order for a valuation of the equipment’s market value and after subtracting the difference between the market value of the equipment from the $157,494.75 purchase price the defendant would pay any balance owing based on the difference. Extreme paid Thabel $80,000 on July 19, 2022 and $2,500 on Oct. 20, 2022. Thabel contended $74,994.75 remains due and owing from the defendant.
“There are significant discrepancies between assertions by Mr. Grewal and Mr. Thabel concerning claims by the defendant that it was owed money by the plaintiff. I do not need to resolve those differences on this application,” Armstrong decided.
“On balance, I conclude that Mr. Grewal chose to ignore the NOCC (Notice of Civil Claim) until faced with the impending damages assessment in October 2023,” Armstrong decided.
“The defendant said it attempted to sell the equipment and discovered that the actual value was lower than the amount they paid to the plaintiff. No evidence was tendered on this point nor was there any evidence concerning the timing of the attempted sale contrasted to the contract of purchase and sale in March 2022. I am satisfied that there will not be any miscarriage of justice resulting from a refusal of the defendant’s application.”
In assessing damages, Armstrong accepted that the contract of purchase and sale required Extreme to pay $157,494.75.
“Of that sum, $82,500 has been paid in response to plaintiff’s invoice #2187; thus, the balance owing is $74,994.75. Further, $1,792 remains owing from the defendant to the plaintiff under an agreement between the parties for repair work done on the equipment,” he concluded. “The plaintiff has been successful on both applications and will have its costs for the application to set aside the judgment of $1,340 and the costs for the damage assessment.”