B.C. man wins rental car dispute with Hertz

A man who showed up at a rental car company only to be told his online reservation would not be honoured is entitled to compensation, B.C.’s small claims tribunal has ruled.

The dispute dates back to June of 2023 when Lorne Whaley booked a car online with Hertz Canada Limited. Whaley was seeking damages for the cost of securing another vehicle as well as “stress caused by this incident,” according to a decision posted online Tuesday.

The company acknowledged that Whaley booked a car and that it did not provide one on the date and time for which it was reserved. However, Hertz argued the online reservation did not “establish a contractual relationship” and did not “guarantee an available car,” according to the decision.

The company did not provide any evidence to the tribunal at all, meaning there was none submitted in support of this argument – such as a copy of the reservation or information about its policies – to support the claim that reservations were “subject to availability.”

Tribunal member Peter Mennie found that a reservation “implies that Hertz set aside a car” and that the company broke its agreement to rent a car to Whaley by failing to provide one – meaning it was liable for breach of contract.

When Whaley showed up at Hertz to pick up the car, an employee directed him to another rental company. That company also did not have any vehicles but helped Whaley find an available vehicle at another location further away, the decision says.

Hertz was ordered to pay Whaley $59, the amount he spent on taxis getting to and from the place where he ultimately rented a car. The company was also ordered to pay Whaley $60 for a fee he incurred that he would not have if his initial reservation had been honoured.

“Mr. Whaley paid these extra costs as a consequence of Hertz breaching the parties’ contract,” the decision said.

Damages for mental distress

Whaley told the tribunal that it took hours to rent a car, delaying his plans and causing the stress for which he sought to be compensated.

“He and two elderly family members were planning to travel that day, but the delay caused them to arrive at their destination too late to see an unwell relative,” Mennie wrote.

“I infer that Mr. Whaley is claiming mental distress damages.”

These types of damages, the decision said, are not generally available in breach of contract cases. One of the exceptions to this is when “part of the contract’s purpose was for a ‘psychological benefit.”’

In this case, Mennie found that there was a psychological benefit to the reservation – “namely that reserving a car rental would make his travel less stressful.”

Mental distress, legally, is defined as something that goes “beyond mere frustration or disappointment,” the decision noted, finding that Whaley’s experience met this threshold.

“I accept that a four-hour delay for three seniors travelling to visit a sick relative caused Mr. Whaley mental distress that went beyond mere frustration or disappointment,” the decision said.

“I find that this was a foreseeable consequence of Hertz not having a car available.”

Whaley was awarded $200 in damages as compensation.