小蓝视频’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has awarded $319 to a man told by a rental car company that a reservation didn’t mean he’d get a vehicle.
Tribunal member Peter Mennie said in his that Lorne Larry Whaley reserved a car online with Hertz Canada Limited.
Whaley says Hertz did not have a car available for him and claimed damages for taxis to another car rental company, additional expenses for an alternate car rental and stress caused by the June 15, 2023 incident.
Hertz said Whaley’s reservation did not guarantee an available car so it was not liable for any damages.
Both sides agreed Whaley reserved a car on Hertz’s website on June 14, 2023, for pick up the following day.
Hertz said it called Whaley to say that no car was available but was unfortunately unable to reach him.
“No car was available when Mr. Whaley arrived at Hertz,” Mennie wrote. “A Hertz employee directed him to another car rental company nearby.”
Whaley said he went to the second rental company, which also had no car available. However, that company did help him find a third car rental company further away.
“He took a taxi to the third company and rented a car,” Mennie said.
Hertz argued that the reservation on its website did not lead to a contractual relationship between the parties. It said that reservations are subject to availability and do not guarantee a car rental.
“I do not accept this submission,” Mennie said. “A reservation implies that Hertz set aside a car for Mr. Whaley. It was open to Hertz to provide evidence of its website’s policies or a copy of Mr. Whaley’s booking to show that his car reservation was subject to availability.”
Mennie said Hertz provided no evidence.
“So, I draw an adverse inference against Hertz for failing to provide this evidence,” Mennie ruled. “I find that Hertz agreed to rent a car to Mr. Whaley on June 15, 2023, and that it broke this agreement.”
Mennie ordered Hertz to pay Whaley $60 for the increased cost of his car rental and $59 for his taxis for a total of $119.
Mennie also said mental distress damages are generally not available in breach of contract cases.
However, Mennie said, such damages are available when the contract is for peace of mind or psychological benefit.
“I find that the parties’ contract did provide Mr. Whaley with a psychological benefit, namely that reserving a car rental would make his travel less stressful,” Mennie said. “I accept that a four-hour delay for three seniors travelling to visit a sick relative caused Mr. Whaley mental distress that went beyond mere frustration or disappointment. I find that this was a foreseeable consequence of Hertz not having a car available.”
Whaley was awarded $200 for mental distress.
