Precendents

Question 1

Queen v. Commercial Credit Corp 1983

Answer 1

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

Question 2

Conwest Exploration v Letain 1963

Answer 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.

Question 3

Owen Sound Public Board Library V. Mail Development

Answer 3

Owner had right to implied extension.

Was not heard by supreme court.

Question 4

Mutual Finance V John Wetton and Sons 1937

Answer 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.

Question 5

Koctis v. D’Angelo 1958

Answer 5

Unlicensed Electrictian did not get paid for time and materials.

Question 6

Monticichio V. Torcema Construction 1979

Answer 6

Unlicensed plumber was paid for materials.

Question 7

Ron Engineering V Ontario 1981

Answer 7

Contract A and Contract B.

More stuff here

Question 8

Chinook Aggregates Ltd. V. Abbotsford 1989

Answer 8

All bidders must be treated equally.

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

Question 9

Martel Building Ltd. V. Canada 2000

Answer 9

Martel was lowest bid bot not accepted. Misleading negotiation
Lowest bid need not be accepted. Include a rules clause in bid documents.

Question 10

The Moorcock Doctrine 1889

Answer 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.

Question 11

Ford Homes V. Draft Masonry 1983

Answer 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.

Question 12

Harbutt’s Plasticine v. Wayne Tank & Pump 1970

Answer 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 conctract (No reasonable engineer would have used a plastic pipe) the clause was not valid.

Question 13

Pym V. Campbell 1856

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

Lambert V. Lastoplex Chemicals 1971

Answer 14

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.

Question 15

Lem V. Barotto Sports & Ponsness-Warren 1976

Answer 15

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.

Question 16

Dutton V. Bognor Regis United Building Co. 1972

Answer 16

Foundations laid were inadequate and damage resulted.
Local building inspector negligently approved the foundations.
Inspectors employer was held vicariously liable.

Question 17

Northwestern Insurance V. O’Bryan 1974

Answer 17

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.

Question 18

Canam Contracting V. Huffman 1993

Answer 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.

Question 19

Corp. Dist of Surrey V. Carrol Hatch 1979

Answer 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.

Question 20

Central Trust V. Rafuse 1986

Answer 20

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

Question 21

Rivtow Marine V. Washington Iron Works 1973

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

MacMillan Bloedel v Foundation Co 1977

Answer 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.

Question 23

Bethlehem Steel Corp V. St Lawrence Sea Authority 1977

Answer 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.

Question 24

CN Railway V. Norsk Pacific Steamship Corp 1990

Answer 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.