Precendents Flashcards
Queen v. Commercial Credit Corp 1983
Contract acceptance is when mailed. Includes fax and email as well.
Conwest Exploration v Letain 1963
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.
Owen Sound Public Board Library V. Mail Development
Owner had right to implied extension.
Was not heard by supreme court.
Mutual Finance V John Wetton and Sons 1937
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.
Koctis v. D’Angelo 1958
Unlicensed Electrictian did not get paid for time and materials.
Monticichio V. Torcema Construction 1979
Unlicensed plumber was paid for materials.
Ron Engineering V Ontario 1981
Contract A and Contract B.
More stuff here
Chinook Aggregates Ltd. V. Abbotsford 1989
All bidders must be treated equally.
Owner breached by preferring local contractors, but did not stipulate that in the tender documents.
Martel Building Ltd. V. Canada 2000
Martel was lowest bid bot not accepted. Misleading negotiation
Lowest bid need not be accepted. Include a rules clause in bid documents.
The Moorcock Doctrine 1889
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.
Ford Homes V. Draft Masonry 1983
Staircases installed were not up to code.
Implied term was that building code would be followed. Obvious and did not need to be stated.
Harbutt’s Plasticine v. Wayne Tank & Pump 1970
Heating tape caused plastic pipe to fail and factory burned down.
Contract had a clause limiting liability, but due to the fundamental breach of conctract (No reasonable engineer would have used a plastic pipe) the clause was not valid.
Pym V. Campbell 1856
Contract concerned shared ownership of an invention.
Parties agreed purchase of the rights would be conditional. That condition was never met.
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.
Lambert V. Lastoplex Chemicals 1971
Engineer purchased lacquer for home improvement project, used it near a pilot light furnace, it exploded.
The disclaimer on the can was not sufficient as compared to a competitors disclaimer.
Lem V. Barotto Sports & Ponsness-Warren 1976
Hunter bought a shot-shell reloader and was provided with instruction from the retailer as well as an instruction manual.
Hunter didn’t follow simple instructions and hurt himself. Lost as it was his fault.
Dutton V. Bognor Regis United Building Co. 1972
Foundations laid were inadequate and damage resulted.
Local building inspector negligently approved the foundations.
Inspectors employer was held vicariously liable.
Northwestern Insurance V. O’Bryan 1974
Insurance agent was asked to delete a risk from a policy and the agent negligently assured it was done.
Insurance company had to pay out on that risk. Both the agency and the agent were held liable. Employee owed a duty of care to the insurance company.
Canam Contracting V. Huffman 1993
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.
Corp. Dist of Surrey V. Carrol Hatch 1979
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.
Central Trust V. Rafuse 1986
A lawyer can be liable to a client in tort as well as contract for damages for failing to meet standard of care.
Rivtow Marine V. Washington Iron Works 1973
A crane was installed on a barge and collapsed. A similar crane by same manufacturer was determined to have the same defect. Defendant was aware of these defects.
Defendant held liable for lost profits while crane was out of service. Had duty to warn.
MacMillan Bloedel v Foundation Co 1977
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.
Bethlehem Steel Corp V. St Lawrence Sea Authority 1977
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.
CN Railway V. Norsk Pacific Steamship Corp 1990
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.
