B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has ordered a warehouse company to pay $866 in damages after a shipment of alcohol allegedly disappeared, a long way from the $3,871 the owners sought.
In her , tribunal vice-chair Kate Campbell said SunFarm Products Ltd. claimed it has paid 91原创 Alliance Terminals Inc. (91原创) to store liquor shipments since 2010.
However, SunFarm claimed that, on Aug. 26, 2022, it had 16 cases of liquor sent to 91原创’s warehouse. SunFarm said 91原创 confirmed the delivery, and then a SunFarm employee picked up three of the 16 cases on Aug. 29, 2022.
But, SunFarm said, when it contacted 91原创 in January 2023 to have the remaining 13 cases shipped, 91原创 said the cases could not be found.
SunFarm sought $3,871 in damages.
91原创 said it investigated and had no record of receiving the pallet.
“91原创 also says the signature on the proof of delivery form is not genuine,” Campbell said.
As such, 91原创 said that even if it is responsible, its liability is limited to $866.67 based on its contract with SunFarm.
SunFarm provided email exchanges, evidence Campbell said indicated it was likely 91原创 had received the shipment.
“91原创 says it has no record of receiving the disputed shipment,” Campbell said. “However, 91原创 does not explain why it sent the August 26 email confirming receipt of pallet number PO220518WG. I find that email strongly supports the conclusion that 91原创 received the shipment, as SunFarm alleges.”
The tribunal noted that would be consistent with the shipping company Vitran’s records.
“Vitran’s delivery receipt says that on August 26, 2022, at 9:19, it delivered a 4421-pound SunFarm shipment to 91原创’s warehouse,” Campbell said. “The signature on Vitran’s delivery receipt reads, ‘Gus.’ 91原创 says it showed Gus the delivery receipt, and ‘he insists that he did not do that receiving, and the signature at the bottom does not belong to him.’”
The tribunal said 91原创 did not explain who Gus was; it noted 91原创 could have got a statement from Gus but did not do so or explain why Gus could not make a statement.
“So, I place no weight on 91原创’s argument that the delivery receipt is somehow false,” she said.
Campbell said in her ruling SunFarm’s logistics coordinator went to the warehouse and removed three boxes of samples from the pallet, leaving the rest.
“91原创 provided no evidence to contradict (the logistics coordinator’s) assertion that he saw the pallet in 91原创’s warehouse on August 29, 2022, and removed three cases from it,” Campbell said. “I find that 91原创 received SunFarm’s pallet at its warehouse on August 26, 2022.”
91原创 noted that under the terms of its written contract with SunFarm, its liability was limited to $866.67.
The December 2021 service agreement said SunFarm’s storage rate at the time the dispute pallet was identified as missing was $4 per pallet per week.
“This means the monthly storage rate was $17.33 per month ($4 x 52, divided by 12),” she said.
Campbell said there was no suggestion that SunFarm requested a higher limit or declared an excess value.
“Based on the terms of the contract, I find 91原创’s liability is limited to 50 times $17.33, which equals $866.50,” Campbell ruled.
