Precedent's Reverse

Question 1

Contract acceptance is when mailed. Includes fax and email as well.

Answer 1

Queen v. Commercial Credit Corp 1983

Question 2

Option to purchase mining claims. Implied an extended deadline. Changed mine, tried to execute original contract. Courts ruled it would be inequitable for the optionee if the extended rule was not upheld.
Estopped from reverting to strict contractual rights.

Answer 2

Conwest Exploration v Letain 1963

Question 3

Owner had right to implied extension.

Was not heard by supreme court.

Answer 3

Owen Sound Public Board Library V. Mail Development 1979

Question 4

Party forged a guarantee; second party atttempted to execute a second gurantee under threat of disclosure of forgery.
Ruled that the second guarantee was made under duress so unenforceable.

Answer 4

Mutual Finance V John Wetton and Sons 1937

Question 5

Unlicensed Electrictian did not get paid for time and materials.

Answer 5

Koctis v. D’Angelo 1958

Question 6

Unlicensed plumber was paid for materials.

Answer 6

Monticchio V. Torcema Construction 1979

Question 7

Contract A and Contract B.

Answer 7

Ron Engineering V Ontario 1981

Question 8

All bidders must be treated equally.

Owner breached by preferring local contractors, but did not stipulate that in the tender documents.

Answer 8

Chinook Aggregates Ltd. V. Abbotsford 1989

Question 9

Lowest bid need not be accepted. Include a rules clause in bid documents.

Answer 9

Martel Building Ltd. V. Canada 2000

Question 10

Owner rented dock space. Ship was damaged.
Implied term was ship would be safely moored at low-tide.
Obvious and did not need to be stated.

Answer 10

The Moorcock Doctrine 1889

Question 11

Staircases installed were not up to code.

Implied term was that building code would be followed. Obvious and did not need to be stated.

Answer 11

Ford Homes V. Draft Masonry 1983

Question 12

Heating tape caused plastic pipe to fail and factory burned down.
Contract had a clause limiting liability, but due to the fundamental breach of contract (No reasonable engineer would have used a plastic pipe) the clause was not valid.

Answer 12

Harbutt’s Plasticine v. Wayne Tank & Pump 1970

Question 13

Defendant argued that condition was never met and therefore no contract was entered into.
Since no contract was entered into at all, Parol Evidence rule was not applicable.

Answer 13

Pym V. Campbell 1856

Question 14

The disclaimer on the can was not sufficient as compared to a competitors disclaimer.

Answer 14

Lambert V. Lastoplex Chemicals 1971

Question 15

Hunter didn’t follow simple instructions and hurt himself. Lost as it was his fault.

Answer 15

Lem V. Barotto Sports & Ponsness-Warren 1976

Question 16

Inspectors employer was held vicariously liable.

Answer 16

Dutton V. Bognor Regis United Building Co. 1972

Question 17

Both the agency and the agent were held liable. Employee owed a duty of care to the insurance company.

Answer 17

Northwestern Insurance V. O’Bryan 1974

Question 18

Engineer negligently left a note of a set of plans that said “Good Plans. Etc”
Contractor acted on them and the construction failed.
Engineer argued he didn’t know he was being consulted.
Engineer and Contractor held 50-50 responsible.
Engineer appealed and was found 75% responsible.

Answer 18

Canam Contracting V. Huffman 1993

Question 19

Architect designed a building, hired engineer’s to do soil testing. Engineer recommended more testing, architect declined.
Both were held liable 60% architect 40% engineer.

Answer 19

Corp. Dist of Surrey V. Carrol Hatch 1979

Question 20

A lawyer can be liable to a client in tort as well as contract for damages for failing to meet standard of care.

Answer 20

Central Trust V. Rafuse 1986

Question 21

Defendant held liable for lost profits while crane was out of service. Had duty to warn.

Answer 21

Rivtow Marine V. Washington Iron Works 1973

Question 22

Defendant’s employees negligently damaged electrical supply to building.
Sued for employee wages.
Defendant won, as the wages would have been paid either way.
Would have been successful if sued for loss of profits.

Answer 22

MacMillan Bloedel v Foundation Co 1977

Question 23

Ship ran into a bridge and blocked a canal.
Owner of ship was found responsible.
2 claimants. 1 asked for loss of profits of 2 ships which had been delayd for 2 weeks.
1 asked for cost of shipping goods over land.
Neither claim was allowed.
Liability is only extended when physical harm to property has been threatened.

Answer 23

Bethlehem Steel Corp V. St Lawrence Sea Authority 1977

Question 24

Barge collided with bridge owned by public works.
Sufficient proximity to justify liability.
Tracks to and from bridge were owned by CN Rail and therefore they were entitled to recover economic loss.

Answer 24

CN Railway V. Norsk Pacific Steamship Corp 1990