Samsung must honour quote for cell phone trade-in, B.C. tribunal rules

The Samsung logo.

A B.C. man who claimed he was short-changed by $87 when he traded in his cell phone has won a dispute with Samsung, according to a decision from the Civil Resolution Tribunal.

The ruling was posted online Thursday, outlining the circumstances of the trade-in and the electronics giant’s explanation for refusing to honour the originally quoted amount.

Rajat Verma bought a new phone in 2023 and traded in his old phone for credit, the decision said.

“The parties agree on Samsung’s trade-in process, which is as follows. Samsung has a tool on its website which allows a customer to assess a phone’s trade-in value before purchasing a new phone,” tribunal member Amanda Binnie wrote, adding that in Verma’s case, the value was calculated at $145.

But after the phone was sent to a third party, Samsung told Verma the amount had been reduced to $58 because the phone was in “damaged condition,” the decision said.

Verma demanded more details about the damage via email and did not receive a response, Binnie wrote. A follow-up email also went unanswered and Verma’s account was adjusted to charge him the difference.

The terms and conditions of the trade-in program contain a clause saying the amount can be adjusted in cases where the device “differs materially” from what the customer has described, the decision said.

Samsung told the tribunal it adjusted the value because Verma “incorrectly answered a question about whether the display was fully functional, or whether there was damage or defects to the front or back glass,” Binnie wrote.

Photos submitted by Verma as evidence to the tribunal showed what Binnie described as “minor cosmetic issues” with the phone, specifically, “tiny chips in the paint along the top.”

Given that, the tribunal found Samsung was not entitled to reduce the trade-in amount.

The company, the decision noted, did not provide any evidence in the dispute “despite being given the opportunity to do so.” Binnie decided to proceed with a decision without waiting any longer for Samsung “to provide evidence it may or may not have,” finding further delay would be “procedurally unfair” to Verma.

The company was ordered to pay Verman $87 to reflect the original trade-in quote of $145.

Verma also sought $1,000 in punitive damages, alleging the company has “shown a pattern of breaching its duty of good faith and fair dealing,” the decision said.

In support of this claim, Verma relied on a Reddit page the decision described as “showing other customers unsatisfied with Samsung’s trade-in practices.”

This, the tribal found, was not enough to demonstrate a pattern of behaviour.

“I find there is no evidence Samsung engaged in high-handed, malicious, or highly reprehensible conduct. So, I dismiss Mr. Verma’s claim for punitive damages,” Binnie wrote.

Samsung was also ordered to reimburse Verma $125 in tribunal fees.