Law Cases

Question 1

Wolverine Tube v. Noranda Metals

(1994)

Answer 1

Tort Case: Negligence Tort & Disclaimer

• Environmental audit performed by consultant for Noranda that says everything is okay with a disclaimer dismissing responsibilities for damages,
• Noranda gives report to plaintiff (Wolverine Tube) who relies on report as part of a deal purchasing propery from the defendant (Noranda Metals)
• Consultant unaware of sale; assessment later found to be inaccurate,
• Court upheld the disclaimer; defendant did not owe damages

Question 2

Moorcock

(1889)

Answer 2

Contract Case: Implied Terms

• Owner of a ship (Moorcock) has contracted with dock to moor ship for unloading,
• Ship is moored but tide goes out and ship is damaged, Contract does not state that ship would be safe while docked,
• Court finds there is an implied term that under normal circumstances (low tide) the ship would be safe while moored.

Question 3

Donoghue v. Stevenson

(1932)

Answer 3

Tort Case: Negligence Tort

• Ms. Sonahue consumed part of a ginger beer purchased by her friend, who then finds decomposed snail in bottle, after Ms. Donahue becomes sick,
• No contract exsisted with manufacturer or proprietor; Ms. Donahue did no purchase the bottle; The purcheser did not get sick,
• House of Lords decides that defendant had a duty of care to the ultimate consumer thus introducing the unintentional tort of negligence.

Question 4

Hunter Engineering v. Syncrude Canada

(1989)

Answer 4

Contract Case: Fundamental Breach

• Gearboxes supplied with express warranty but with clause that excluded all other warranties including statutory (Ontatio Sale of Goods Act).
• Gerboxes fail after express warranty expires but Syncrude claimed fundamental breach based on statue warranty.
• Court upheld exemtion clause.

Question 5

Photo Production v. Secricor Transport

(1980)

Answer 5

Contract Case: Fundamental Breach

• Defendant enters into contract that states it cannot be held liable for actions of its employees.
• Employees start fire that leads to 615k pounds in damages.
• Plaintiff call fundamental breach - court rules for defendant - overturned on appeal. i.e. there was fundamental breach, revesed by House of Lords back to defendant (exclusion clause applies).

Question 6

Geotaverken Energy v. Caribou Pulp & Paper

(1993)

Answer 6

Contract Case: Economic Duress

• Fixed price contract to retrofit boiler during routine shutdown period.
• Delays occurred that owner took respnsilbility for and offerend compensation.
• Contractor threatened work shutdoen unless owner renegotiated contract from fixed price to time and material.
• Owner stood to lose substaintial amount but contractor ‘had a gun pointed at the owners head’.
• Later court decision held that such pressure represented economic duress and was not valid.”

Question 7

Ron Engineering

(1981)

Answer 7

Contract Case: Mistake

• A bid was submitted with a ($750k) mistake along with a deposit, Tender document says that withdrawn bids will lose deposit,
• Court rules that the tendering process is itself a contract (Contract A),
• Supreme court ultimately ruled that plaintiff was obligated to pay the deposit,
• Does not set necessarily overrule Belle River but does identify a landmark that there is a Contract A (tendering) and Contract B (actual work).”

Question 8

John Burrows v. Subsurface Surveys

(1968)

Answer 8

Contract Case: Equability

• Defendant agrees to pay back loan over some term; late payments trigger immediate payback of entire sum,
• Defendant makes several late payments w/o being asked to repay entire loan,
• Finally, for a late payment the plaintiff demands full repayment,
• Defendant requests equitable estoppel which is granted by appellate court, Supreme court overturns -> in order for estoppel to apply Burrows would have had to promise or assue the terms of the contract would not apply. i.e. simply not enforcing does not imply it would never be enforced.

Question 9

Harbutt’s Plasticine v. Wayne Tank & Pump

(1970)

Answer 9

Contract Case: Fundamental Breach

• Plaintiff entered into contract with defendant to perform and installation in a factory,
• Contract limited liability to 2300 pounds, however, defendant installed pipe wholly unsuitable for the purpose leading to 170k pounds in damages,
• Court finds defendant fundamentally breached the contract and could not be protected by limitation clause.

Question 10

Imperial Glass v. Consolidated Supplies

(1960)

Answer 10

Court Case: Mistake

• The offeror made a mistake in the contract calculation of price,
• Offeree knows that there is a mistake but accepts the contract anyway,
• Court holds that offeror must honor the contract obligations

Question 11

Belle River v. WJC Kaufman

(1977)

Answer 11

Contract Case: Mistake

• Defendant submits bid with error and tries to widthraw,
• Plaintiff knows there is an error, attempts to accept bid, defendant refuses
• Plaintiff goes to next bid and sues defendant for the difference, Court finds for defendant as there was no legally enforceable contract in effect.

Question 12

Sturges v. Bridmen

(1879)

Answer 12

Tort Case: Nuisance Tort

• Doctor moves to property, is subjected to noice from adjacent confectioer that had been in place for some time thus disrupting the use and enjoyment of his land,
• Decision finds that is it NO defence that the plaintiff “came to the nuisance”

Question 13

Miller v. Jackson

(1977)

Answer 13

Tort Case: Nuisance

• The Millers purchased a new house on the boundary of a cricket field,
• Cricket balls hit over boundary,
• Court finds that the public interest does not outweight the threat of harm to the Millers.
• Court of Appeal said it was no defence of the claimant coming to the nuisance: the cricket club was quilty of negligence and nusiance, but the injunction was not awarded.

Question 14

Owen Sound Public Library v. Mial Developments

(1979)

Answer 14

Contract Case: Equitability

• Contract says contractor should be paid by owner no later then 7 days of an architect’s certificate,
• Architect certifies but parties agree upon a certain action that contractor was supposed to complete,
• Owner doesn’t pay because waiting to hear back from contractor (thinks there is an extension),
• Contractor doesn’t act and then tries to cancel contract (wasn’t paid),
• Court finds in favour of owner, contractor claimed default but the default was induced by the contractor’s action.

Question 16

Hedley Byrne v. Heller

(1964)

Answer 16

Tort Case: Negligence Tort & Disclaimer

• Plaintiff asks banker to inquire about credit worthines of a client,
• Plaintiff’s banker asks clients banker (Heller) who indicate the client if finacially sound (with the stipulation that their response was made ‘without responsibility’),
• No contract existed,
• Clinent went bankrupt costing the plaintiff 17k pounds,
• The court found that ‘when a person relies upon the special skill and judgment of another, and when the second person knew of that reliance, the second persion was duty bound to take reasonable care in exercising that skill’,
• Heller’s response was found to be a negligent misstatement, and a duty of care was owed, however due to the explicit statement foregoing responsibility it was no enforced.

Question 17

Trident v. W.L. Waldrop

(1979)

Answer 17

Tort Case: Negligence Tort

• Engineer provides design of sewage disposal plant,
• Contractor must build to engineer’s design but poor design proves costly to builder,
• The engineer is duty bound to exercise resonable care irrespective of a contractual agreement

Question 18

Conquest Exploration v. Letain

(1963)

Answer 18

Contract Case: Equitability

• Optionee for mining claim must take certain actions by a particular date in order to exercise option,
• Optioner knows optionee will not make the date and offers (w/o conderation, a gratutious promise) to extend but later tries to strickly enforce the contract terms,
• Court finds for the optionee as it would be unfair (inequitable) -> optionor is estopeed from reverting to the strict contractual rights.