A BC Civil Resolution Tribunal case is evoking Seinfeld vibes, in a case where a car rental company didn’t have a car for a BC man.
Lorne Whaley said that he had reserved a car online but that Hertz did not have one available.
He claimed damages for the amount he had to pay for taxis that took him to a different rental company, additional expenses for an extra rental car, and stress caused by the incident.
Hertz said that Whaley’s reservation did not guarantee an available car.
Is this what would’ve happened if Jerry Seinfeld went the legal route? Here’s what the tribunal decided.
Both sides agree that Whaley reserved a car on Hertz’s website on June 14, 2023, for pick up the next day. After he made the reservation, Hertz tried to call Whaley to say no car was available, but it couldn’t reach him.
When Whaley arrived, no car was available, so a Hertz employee directed him to a nearby company. The second company also did not have any vehicles, and it directed Whaley to a third. The third company did have a car, but it was further away.
Hertz argued that there was no contractual relationship between itself and Whaley based on a reservation, saying that reservations are subject to availability and do not guarantee a rental.
“I do not accept this submission,” the tribunal 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,” it added.
Hertz provided no evidence to the tribunal, which concluded that not having a car broke the parties’ agreement.
The tribunal awarded Whaley $200 for mental distress and compensation for having to pay for a taxi and his other car rental.
In total, Hertz was ordered to pay $517.52, which included $319 in damages and the rest in CRT fees.
In the immortal words of Seinfeld, “You know how to take the reservation; you just don’t know how to hold the reservation.”