Duncan Provincial Court Judge JP MacCarthy dismissed the claim brought by Peter Andrew Sterczyk against DFS Motors Ltd., which does business as Island Ford. According to MacCarthy’s June 21 ruling, Sterczyk conceived the contest — which he called “Win My Ride” — in 2019. The idea was to promote his business by entering anyone who completed a real estate transaction with him into a drawing, which would give them a chance to win his vehicle as a prize. “His plan was to get a new car with dealer finance in December 2019, use it during 2020 and then draw the winner on 31 December 2020, pay off the balance of the finance and transfer the title to the winner in January 2021,” reports MacCarthy’s. the decision reads. Sterczyk approached Island Ford because it was running its own promotion at the time, called “Mustangs at Cost,” which promised deep discounts on new Ford Mustangs. The realtor contacted Island Ford salesman Abraham Lee, who eventually sent him a window sticker for a vehicle at another dealership in the Lower Mainland that Lee offered to buy for Sterczyk, according to the ruling. Based on the window sticker, Lee and Sterczyk agreed to a purchase offer, and Sterczyk made a $2,500 credit card deposit, MacCarthy’s ruling states. Although Lee did not tell Sterczyk which dealership the vehicle would come from, the window sticker included the vehicle identification number, which allowed Sterczyk to look up the vehicle and find it advertised on Mainland Ford’s Surrey website. Sterczyk noted that the vehicle listed on the website had more features than the window sticker indicated, which MacCarthy concludes in his ruling that neither Lee “nor any other representative” of Island Ford knew at the time Lee accepted the deposition by Sterczyk. As a result of the upgrades made to the vehicle at Mainland Ford, Lee informed Sterczyk that it was no longer available at the agreed-upon price of $30,000, and began looking for alternative vehicles, according to the court order. Sterczyk rejected three other vehicles with fewer features, arguing that the deal he made was to buy the particular vehicle with the VIN listed on the original window sticker. Eventually, he took Island Ford to court over the matter. Sterczyk’s claim sought the return of his deposit as well as damages for the alleged breach of contract, which his attorney described in a demand letter to Island Ford as a “bait and switch.” After summarizing Sterczyk’s argument that he believed he was entitled to buy the particular Mustang with its unexpected upgrades at the agreed price, MacCarthy rejected it. “With the utmost respect, I find that such reasoning has no merit,” he wrote in his decision. “I am sure that the plaintiff would not (and rightly so) adopt this reasoning if it turned out that the features and accessories described on the vehicle’s original window sticker had actually been removed from the vehicle or were of lower quality or fewer in number.” “In other words, under this flawed reasoning, although the vehicle purchased by plaintiff would be of lesser quality or value than described on the vehicle’s original window sticker, the VIN would be entirely determinative of the subject matter of the negotiations.” or any contract arising. In my view, the parties did not reach such an agreement.” Instead, the judge concluded, the deal the parties reached involved the purchase of a “stock” Mustang for $30,000. Thus, the dealership’s efforts to find a suitable replacement vehicle constituted fulfillment of its obligations under the contract, rather than a “bait and switch” or other deceptive sales tactic. “It was plaintiff who wrongfully and unjustifiably rejected these alternative Mustangs and caused the infringement,” MacCarthy writes. The judge dismissed Sterczyk’s claim in its entirety and awarded certain costs to Island Ford.
