Skip to content

B.C. woman loses $70 lawsuit over remote control, T-shirt and jewelry

'Don’t hate me,' woman said after using friend's Amazon account to order that friend a surprise gift, knowing the friend hated surprises.
A B.C. woman ordered a remote control as a surprise gift.

B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has dismissed a woman’s $70 small claims suit for a remote control, T-shirt, necklace and bracelet.

Jessica Piper said she paid Alana Hellyer $70 for all of the items; however, she says she never received the items from Hellyer, who allegedly failed to repay her.

In her Sept. 18 decision, tribunal member Nav Shukla said Hellyer denied she owed Piper any money, saying Piper gifted her the remote and never paid for the T-shirt, necklace and bracelet.

Shukla said Piper’s evidence included a screenshot of e-transfers showing she sent Hellyer four payments totalling $64.

“The e-transfers contain no memo or description to show what the payments were for,” Shukla aid.

Hellyer said Piper gifted her a remote control on Sept. 21, 2022 as a surprise “friendship gift." Hellyer told the tribunal she hates surprises and Piper knew that.

She said that she offered to pay Piper back twice but Piper repeatedly told her it was a gift and not to worry about it.

Based on Hellyer’s submissions, Piper ordered a $21.27 TV remote using Hellyer’s Amazon account on Sept. 21.

“The evidence does not show who paid for the remote. There is no evidence of any e-transfers from (Piper) to (Hellyer) after Sept. 20, the day before the applicant (Piper) ordered the remote," the tribunal said.

Still, Shukla said, it was likely Piper paid for the remote.

“The only documentary evidence before me about the remote are the Sept. 21 Facebook messages provided by (Hellyer),” Shukla said. “In these messages, (Piper) thanked (Hellyer) for letting them use the Amazon account, provided a screenshot showing the remote’s purchase, and said, ‘Don’t hate me.’”

"I find a likely explanation of the applicant’s 'don’t hate me' message is that they were acknowledging the respondent’s dislike for surprise gifts," Shukla aid.

Shukla found Piper likely intended the remote as a gift, something that cannot be revoked.

On the T-shirt and necklace issue, Hellyer said she had ordered them as a Christmas gift for Piper. Shukla inferred that the items were not sent due to a breakdown in the friendship.

Shukla said Piper provided a screenshot showing e-transfers they sent to Hellyer between Aug. 16 and Sept. 20, 2022, but did not explain what the payments were for in any detail.

Hellyer said the e-transfers were for an unrelated clothing order that she had placed together with Piper.

“Notably, the amounts in the e-transfers do not match the amounts the applicant claims for the T-shirt, necklace and bracelet,” Shukla said.

“I find (Piper) has failed to prove that they paid (Hellyer) for a T-shirt, necklace or bracelet that they did not receive,” Shukla said. “I find (Piper) is not entitled to any payment from the respondent for these items.

“I dismiss the applicant’s claims accordingly.”