B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal says a man who sold another man an admittedly counterfeit cellphone must give the buyer a $500 refund.
In a March 31 decision, tribunal member David Jiang said Derek Garner purchased the phone from Kulwinder Khangura.
Garner said that after the sale, he learned the phone was an inferior counterfeit and claimed a $500 refund.
Khangura, however, denied liability. He did not dispute that the phone was counterfeit but said it was sold on a no refund basis.
Jiang said it was undisputed that screenshots showed Khangura advertised a “SAMSUNG S23 Ultra” for sale on Facebook. The two exchanged text messages to arrange a time to meet up Jan. 7, 2024.
Jiang said Garner tested the phone by taking pictures and inserting a SIM card and calling someone.
“Pictures show the phone came with a box that labelled it as a “Galaxy S23 Ultra.” The box also had a serial number, or IMEI number on it,” Jiang said.
Garner bought the phone.
The transaction was seen by a witness and Garner; both said Khangura advised the phone was genuine, and that his son had purchased it from Costco.
“As nothing contradicts this, I find the respondent likely made these statements,” Jiang said.
Soon after, though, Garner looked at the phone and concluded it was counterfeit. He texted Khangura that they wanted a refund.
“Unfortunately, there will be no returns accepted. Sorry for the inconvenience,” Khangura replied.
Khangura did not deny the phone was counterfeit or otherwise respond after that.
Garner subsequently visited Westcoast Cellphone where, he said, a technician verified the phone was counterfeit.
“I accept the phone is counterfeit as (Khangura) does not deny this in any evidence or submissions,” Jiang said.
The tribunal member said that, despite Khangura saying there would be no refund, “I find this language was insufficient to show that the parties agreed (Garner) would bear the risk that the phone was counterfeit.”
Further, Jiang said, as it was undisputed the phone was counterfeit, Khangura breached the sale contract.
“I find the counterfeit phone likely has no value, given the applicant’s description of it. So, I order the respondent to refund the applicant the full $500,” Jiang ruled.
