[ad_1]
A British Columbia woman has been ordered to pay her ex-boyfriend $450 for tickets to attend a Coldplay concert with her, which she said she thought was a date.
But the province’s civil settlement tribunal said In a ruling There is no evidence that Michael Stolfi intended the ticket to be given to Alyssa Randles as a gift, but rather that the money was something the woman had to repay.
Stolfi took Randles to court after she refused to pay for tickets and other expenses to travel to Vancouver to attend the British rock band’s September 2023 concert.
Randles told the court the trip was a date, the tickets were a gift and Stolfi only asked for money after the concert.
In his July 15 ruling, tribunal member Mark Henderson said Randalls relied on the fact that she was dating Stolfi to prove the ticket was a gift, but she did not describe any “specific behavior” by Stolfi to show that was his intention, such as whether there had been similar gifts in the past.
Henderson wrote that during the hearing, Stolfi provided a copy of a receipt for an electronic transfer of $900 he made to Randles. Stolfi told the court he transferred the money to Randles so she could buy Coldplay tickets through her Ticketmaster account and intended to pay him back on “next payday.”
However, Randles said Stolfi “made it sound like a gift for her.” But she did not provide any evidence that it was a gift or that Stolfi ever gave such a gift.
Randalls also did not tell the court how long she and Stolfi had been dating when she purchased the tickets, something Henderson also noted in his ruling, arguing that it failed to prove the tickets could have been considered a gift.
Furthermore, she said, when Stolfi texted her a week after the concert asking for money, she told him she couldn’t afford to pay him back, and he responded, “Everything is fine,” which she said she interpreted as meaning he didn’t want the money at all.
But Henderson noted Stolfi followed up with a text message conversation on October 3 where he “became increasingly aggressive” and later threatened to contact Randalls’ “landlord, employer and family to demand payment.” The court heard that at this point Randalls contacted police, who told her not to pay Stolfi and to stop contacting him.
In addition to the airfare, Stolfi is seeking damages totaling $600 to cover the cost of the airfare and other expenses associated with the trip, such as taxi fares, meals and hotel rooms, for which he provided receipts.
But Henderson ruled against reimbursing the additional costs because he said Stolfi failed to prove the “specific terms” under which Randles agreed to reimburse the hotel, taxi and meal expenses.
“The parties do not have a written contract,” Henderson wrote. “An oral contract is as enforceable as a written contract, but may be more difficult to prove.”
However, he said it was clear they had discussed splitting the cost of the airfare and ordered Randles to pay Stolfi $450 for the airfare, plus additional costs associated with the refund, for a total of $531.19.
[ad_2]
Source link
