Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»­

Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Legal Decision of the Day: Kamloops vape shop ordered to pay $3K

Vape shop Strange Cloudz Vape Kamloops Corp. was ordered to pay $2,850 to Endymion Holdings Ltd. for website development work despite what the shop claimed was a poor-quality product.
supreme-court-scales-rkjpg

Vape shop Strange Cloudz Vape Kamloops Corp. was ordered to pay $2,850 to Endymion Holdings Ltd. for website development work despite what the shop claimed was a poor-quality product.

Strange Cloudz said Endymion, which does business as Infotel Multimedia, “promised that Strange Cloudz could end the contract and be ‘left alone’ if they were not satisfied with the website,” according to a  by the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT).

Infotel is also a business directory and local news outlet in Kamloops and the Okanagan.

The two parties entered into a contract on Nov. 15, 2021, for Endymion to build and maintain an e-commerce website for the Kamloops vape shop at a monthly cost of $115 plus tax for a minimum of 24 months and an option for Endymion to increase the rate by five per cent each year.

Strange Cloudz paid $121 in November 2021, but failed to make any further payments. Since it didn’t make the December 2021 payment, Endymion was entitled to the full payment of the 24 months of the contract.

“Strange Cloudz argued that the website was of poor quality, and that Endymion promised Strange Cloudz could ‘walk away’ if it was not satisfied with the website. In effect, Strange Cloudz asks to be released from the contract without having to make any further payments,” reads the CRT decision by tribunal member Christopher Rivers.

“Strange Cloudz has the burden to prove the website was poorly done. Yet, it did not provide any evidence to support their argument about the website’s quality, such as a copy of the website or evidence about their specific concerns. So, I find the allegation unproven.”

Rivers further rejected Strange Cloudz’s claim to a verbal agreement that they could abandon the contract if they were not satisfied.

“There is a strong common law presumption that signed written contracts reflect the parties’ true agreement,” Rivers wrote.

“Here, the contract contains clear terms about how each party is able to cancel the contract. So, I cannot depend upon Strange Cloudz’s submission about the conversation they had to modify the written agreement.”