A BC car rental company has lost in court after it claimed that just because a person had made an online reservation with them it didn't guarantee them a vehicle.

According to Oct. 8 BC Civil Resolution Tribunal decision, Hertz Canada argued that a reservation on its website didn't mean the company had a "contractual relationship" with a customer.

"It says that reservations are subject to availability and do not guarantee a car rental," the decision read.

READ MORE: Kelowna couple living in highrise lose legal fight with strata over patio umbrella

However, the Tribunal didn't buy it.

"A reservation implies that Hertz set aside a car," the Tribunal ruled.

The case involves Lorne Larry Whaley, who booked a car from Hertz’s website in June 2023.

However, when Whaley went to pick up the car the next day from the unnamed Hertz’s location, no vehicles were available.

The case highlights the absurdity of car rental companies accepting bookings for vehicles they don't actually have on hand.

After no vehicles were available, Hertz directed Whaley to another car rental company nearby, although when he arrived, it also didn't have a vehicle. He ended up taking a taxi to a third company and got himself a car.

READ MORE: Petition raises concerns about third tiny home project for homeless in Kelowna

The delays meant that Whaley, and his two elderly passengers, arrived at their destination four hours later than planned and were not able to visit a sick relative that day.

Clearly unimpressed, Whaley took Hertz to the online small claims court asking for compensation.

The car rental company's legal argument was non-existent.

"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," the Tribunal ruled. "Hertz provided no evidence in this dispute. So, I draw an adverse inference against Hertz for failing to provide this evidence."

The Tribunal ruled Hertz broke the agreement to rent Whaley a vehicle and in an unusual move awarded damages for the stress caused.

READ MORE: Veteran Summerland RBC manager jailed for swiping $850K from seniors

"Mental distress damages are generally not available for breach of contract," the Tribunal noted.

However, the Tribunal said Whaley's mental distress went beyond "mere frustration or disappointment" and was a foreseeable consequence of Hertz not having a car available.

The Tribunal ordered Hertz to pay $200 for mental distress caused by the breach of the contract.

The Tribunal also ordered Hertz to pay the cab fare getting to the other rental company and the rental car price difference, which together totalled $119.

To contact a reporter for this story, email Ben Bulmer or call (250) 309-5230 or email the editor. You can also submit photos, videos or news tips to the newsroom and be entered to win a monthly prize draw.

We welcome your comments and opinions on our stories but play nice. We won't censor or delete comments unless they contain off-topic statements or links, unnecessary vulgarity, false facts, spam or obviously fake profiles. If you have any concerns about what you see in comments, email the editor in the link above. SUBSCRIBE to our awesome newsletter here.

Share|Facebook