A B.C. man who wanted to sue a delivery service for $12,012 for failing to deliver a package, claiming he lost his job due to the non-delivery, has been awarded $395 for the company's breach of contract.
Civil Resolution Tribunal member Maria Montgomery said in her Dec. 24 decision that Man Leung Johnson Fung claimed GPM Enterprises Ltd., which operates a store with UPS services, failed to deliver a package which caused him to lose his employment.
Fung also said the company failed to process a refund and claimed $395.93 for shipping fees he paid.
“He also claims for six months of lost wages and loss of year-end bonus, for a total of $12,012,” Montgomery said. “He reduced his claim to $5,000 to fit within the Civil Resolution Tribunal’s small claims monetary limit.”
The company said it couldn't provide a refund because Fung asked for the package back after it already shipped.
Fung, a human resources manager, said his employer asked him to send the package.
Fung and the company agreed Fung attended the store on Oct. 23, 2023, and paid $395.93 to ship a package.
“An email confirmation shows the package’s expected delivery date was Oct. 26, 2023. I find this email confirmation reflects the parties’ agreement,” Montgomery wrote. “While Oct. 26 was an estimated delivery date, I find it was an implied term of the contract that the shipment would be initiated within a few days.”
Fung said he discovered 10 days later that the package still had not left the store.
He said he called UPS and cancelled the package on Nov. 2, 2023, retrieved the package a few days later and shipped it using another service. He claimed the non-shipped package breached the contract.
“(Fung) says that a few weeks later, his employment as a human resources manager was terminated because the package was not shipped on time,” Montgomery said.
The company denied that the package was not shipped, saying Fung called the store and asked for the package to be held back, but the package had already left. It said Fung called UPS and had the package returned to the store, which he eventually picked up.
However, Fung provided the tracking log for the package. The log stated that a shipping label was created on Oct. 23. The next entry on the log was dated Nov. 2: “the package will be returned to the sender.”
“I find the tracking log confirms that the package still had not been delivered by Nov. 2, 2023, well after the expected delivery date of Oct. 26,” Montgomery said.
While she agreed the contract had been breached and Fung was entitled to the $395.93, she said he had provided no evidence to support his assertion that his job loss and missed bonus was a result of the company’s failure to send the package.
“I find this claim unproven,” Montgomery ruled.
