This case involved a dispute over a rental agreement and service agreement for water filtration equipment between City Water International Inc. and Polex Manufacturing (Canada) Ltd. The court found that the rental agreement was a pure rental agreement, not a rent-to-own as Polex claimed. The court ruled that Polex owed $206.55 for the one-year automatic renewal period under the rental agreement. However, the court dismissed claims related to the service agreement, as City Water had breached it by failing to properly service the equipment. The court also dismissed City Water's largest claim of $3,000 for the lost equipment, as the equipment was not actually lost but still in Polex's possession. The court ordered Pole

1. Case Name:
City Water International Inc. v. Polex Manufacturing (Canada)
Ltd.
Between
City Water International Inc., Claimant, and
Polex Manufacturing (Canada) Ltd., Defendant
[2011] B.C.J. No. 681
2011 BCPC 84
File No. 23079
Registry: Richmond
British Columbia Provincial Court
Richmond, British Columbia
Adjudicator B.J. Wallace
Heard: January 28, 2011.
Judgment: February 24, 2011.
(22 paras.)
Counsel:
Counsel for the Claimant: Matthew Riddell, Esq.
Appearing for the Defendant: Luke Kwong.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ADJUDICATOR B.J. WALLACE:--
The Claim and Defense
Page 1

2. 1 The Claimant seeks from the defendant, the sum of $3,792.94, being the balance said to be
owed under a rental agreement and a service agreement for water filtration equipment, plus
damages under the rental agreement from the defendant's failure to return the equipment to the
claimant. The claimant also seeks interest, and costs on a "substantial indemnity" basis. The
claimant also seeks an order for the recovery of the equipment.
2 The defendant says that the rental agreement was a "rent-to-own" agreement, so that on the
conclusion of the five-year term, the equipment belonged to the defendant and no longer to the
claimant. As a result, the defendant says it owes nothing further to the claimant.
3 The defendant says in the alternative, that it would have returned the equipment to the claimant
when requested, had it been satisfied the agreement was a pure rental agreement, but that the
claimant did not provide a legible copy of the contract until it served this claim on the defendant.
4 Finally, the defendant says that the claimant has breached the service agreement by failing to
provide the required semi-annual service of the equipment and, as a result, the rental agreement is
terminated.
Facts
5 On October 2, 2003, the parties signed two agreements for water filtration equipment - a rental
agreement and a service agreement both with five-year terms. Allan Mah, who was general manager
of the Defendant at the time, says the Claimant's sales representative, Wayne Neudorf, told him the
rental agreement was a "rent-to-own" agreement, so that on payment of rent for five years the
equipment would be owned by the defendant.
6 The Claimant installed the equipment under the agreements, on September 18, 2003. The
defendant made quarterly payments under the agreements for the initial five-year term, until
September 2008.
7 The defendant says, supported by a photograph of the maintenance record affixed to the
equipment, that it was last serviced in September 2007.
8 On June 11th, 2008 the defendant gave notice by telephone that it no longer required the
service under the contract after September 2008. In that conversation the defendant was told it was
not a rent-to-own contract. The defendant requested a copy of the agreements, but what it received
was illegible.
9 In the next month or so, the defendant made further unsuccessful requests by email for copies
of the agreements and advised the claimant it no longer wished the maintenance service and would
not pay its invoice for the period beyond September.
10 On October 8, 2008, Mr. Kwong noted on a copy of his email exchange with the claimant,
Page 2

3. "Donavan called and advised account is now closed."
11 Seventeen months later, on March 1, 2010, the claimant invoiced the defendant for $3,792.94,
the amount of this claim. By far the largest part of the claim is for the "lost" equipment. However,
there is no evidence the claimant ever asked for the return of the equipment or designated a location
at which the defendant was to return it.
12 The Notice of Claim was filed on May 18, 2010.
Rental Agreement
13 Section 1 of both the rental agreement and the service agreement provide that they cannot be
cancelled by the customer.
14 Section 8 of the rental agreement provides,
... this Agreement will be automatically renewed for new successive terms of one
year each upon the expiration of the Term ... unless the customer notifies the
Lessor in writing at least six months prior to the expiration of the Term. ...
15 Section 4 of the service agreement is to the same effect.
16 Section 9 provides,
In the event either party elects not to proceed into the Renewal Period or being in
the Renewal Period elects to cancel this Agreement, Customer shall, at its own
risk and expense, immediately return the equipment to Lessor or its designated
agent, in the same condition as when delivered, ordinary wear and tear excepted,
at such location as Lessor shall designate.
Section 13 provides,
Customer shall have no right, title or interest in the Equipment other than the
right to maintain possession and use of the Equipment for the full Term. ...
Section 23 provides,
... This Agreement contains the whole of the agreement between the parties and
there are no collateral agreements or conditions not specifically set forth herein,
and no modifications, amendments or variations shall be effective or binding
Page 3

4. unless agreed to in writing. ...
Analysis
17 It is clear from section 13 of the rental agreement that the agreement was a pure rental
agreement and not "rent-to-own" as submitted by the defendant. In the face of the "whole
agreement" provision at section 23, the evidence of an oral modification of the agreement by the
sales agent at the time it was entered is insufficient to change the clear terms. Similarly, Donavan's
apparent forgiveness of the defendant's obligations in October 2008 is of no effect.
18 The rental agreement requires six months written notice to avoid the automatic renewal for
one year. I find that term clear and not so onerous as to be unconscionable. The defendant's notice
was given less than six moths prior to the end of the term. It gave written notice even later. I find
that the defendant is liable for the payment for the one-year automatic renewal period of $206.55.
19 With respect to the service agreement I find that the claimant is in breach for failing to service
the equipment. As servicing is the sole purpose of the agreement, it is a fundamental beach and
terminates the agreement. The claim for $180.00 for service in the renewal term is dismissed. The
defendant did not seek the return of its service payments for the last year of the initial term.
20 The largest claim is for $3,000.00 for lost equipment. However, the equipment was not lost.
The defendant had it and the claimant knew it did. The rental agreement requires the claimant to
designate a location for delivery of the equipment. It did not do so, nor did it seek to retrieve the
equipment from the defendant. The claim for the value of the equipment is dismissed.
21 The defendant says it has the equipment. The claimant is entitled to retrieve the equipment
from the defendant or to have the defendant return the equipment to it. In the event the equipment
cannot be retrieved or returned in the same condition as delivered, normal wear and tear excepted,
the defendant is to pay the claimant the sum of $3,000.00, the agreed value of the equipment.
Order
22 The claim is allowed in the amount of $206.55, and the defendant is to return the equipment to
the claimant. There will be no order for costs or interest.
ADJUDICATOR B.J. WALLACE
cp/e/qlrds/qljxr
Page 4