amanda's winter 2010 contracts can

Upload: geeth-mp

Post on 07-Aug-2018

218 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    1/33

    h. Promises under SealRoyal Bank of Canada v. Kiska, Cb.: 252, [1967] Ont. C.A.a!ts: P and " made a !ontra!t re#ardin# $a%ment o& a loan' the !ontra!t (as not si#nedunder an o&&i!ial seal but the (ord )seal* (as $rinted on the !ontra!t and the "e& si#ned hisname ne+t to it. +!er$t b% -asin /.A. is 0 "0SS' a$$eal (as allo(ed b% C.A. ma3orit%0ssues: 4as the instrument in uestion a sealed instrument

    oldin# 8 easons: o, and be!ause there (as no !onsideration, the #uarantee !ould onl% been&or!ed i& it (as made under seal.

    a. ela+ation o& the leel o& &ormalit% reuired b% the !ourts' ;an% re$resentation o& a sealmade b% a si#nator% (ill do.

     b. /ust be!ause the (ords ;#ien under seal> or ;si#ned, sealed and deliered> are $resentdoesn*t mean the !ontra!t (as made under seal. Some de#ree o& &ormalit% is still reuiredbe!ause it seres the $ur$ose o& im$ressin# on the si#natories the seriousness o& thea#reement.

    c. here (as no intention here, and no $ro$erl% sealed instrument. urther, hain# the (ord)seal* on the instrument doesn*t mean that that*s the seal' it*s merel% an indi!ation o& (herethe seal should #o.

    atio: 0& an instrument isn*t si#ned under seal, or i& the instrument sa%s )seal* but there is noa!tual seal a&&i+ed, then the instrument ma% not be bindin# i& the si#nor didn*t intend &or it to bebindin#.?ain Prin!i$les:1= ormalit% has been rela+ed but is still reuired. Seal ma% reliee reuirement o&!onsideration.2= 0& no !onsideration, intention and &ormalit% still reuired. -an#ua#e o& ;under seal>insu&&i!ient.

    i. Promissor% sto$$el and 4aier 

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    2/33

    Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd., [19H7] I.G. G.J., Cb.: 2Da!ts: Plt&

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    3/33

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    4/33

    'nternational Knitwear &r"hite"ts 'n". v. Ka!o! 'nvest%ents Ltd. 

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    5/33

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    6/33

    Kornerup v. Raytheon Canada Ltd. 

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    7/33

    M. *,.+ v.  &. *&.T.+ 

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    8/33

    Ja"kson v. Horion Holidays Ltd., [1975] I.G. C.A., S.?.: 52a!ts: P

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    9/33

    b. elian!e on Contra!ts b% hird Part% Jene&i!iaries &or "e&ensie Pur$oses

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    10/33

    London #rugs Ltd. v. Kuehne $ ,agel 'nternational Ltd., [199D] S.C.C., Cb.: 29B?ain Prin!i$les:irst Canadian e+!e$tion to $riit% rules. A stri!t a$$li!ation o& $riit% de&eats the $ur$oseo& this e+em$tion !lause

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    11/33

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    12/33

    J. +$ress erms

    a. Parol iden!e ule

    Hawrish v. Bank of Montreal  

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    13/33

    Comments &rom 5allen v.  Butterley re: oral . (ritten a#reements:1= ;here is no ob3e!tion to the introdu!tion o& eiden!e to establish an oral a#reement

    se$arate &rom the (ritten a#reement and made at the same time. Jut it*s notreasonable to hae t(o !ontra!t that deal (ith the same sub3e!t matter and are!ontradi!tor%.

    2= he $rin!i$le !an*t be absolute.

    D= here are seeral !ases that !ould hae been dis$osed o& i& the $rin!i$le (as absolute,but the !ases (eren*t. his su##ests that the oral a#reements must hae held some(ei#ht.

    H= ;0& the !ontra!t (as indu!ed b% an oral misre$resentation that is in!onsistent (ith the(ritten !ontra!t, the (ritten !ontra!t !annot stand. o oral indu!ement throu#hmisre$resentation.

    5= 0& the oral a#reement merel% aries, addin# or subtra!tin# &rom the !ontra!t !an be oa%,(hereas !ontradi!tin# is unreasonable.

    6= he $resum$tion is that i& it loos lie a !ontra!t, then the !ontra!t is (hole. o(eer, this$resum$tion is rebuttable. 0& the oral a#reement is !ontradi!tor% then the $resum$tion isstron#, (hereas i& the oral re$resentation adds to the a#reement then the $resum$tion isless stron#.

    7= he $resum$tion is more ri#orous i& the $arties !reated an indiiduall% ne#otiated !ontra!t

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    14/33

    b. ?ere e$resentations or erms o& Contra!t

    Heil!ut4 y%ons $ Co. v. Bu"kleton, [191D] .-., Cb.: D71a!ts: /ohnston, mana#er o& "*s ' P bou#ht shares' a&ter, it (as dis!oered that rubber trees (ere de&i!ient, !om$an%*sshares dro$$ed in alue' P brou#ht a!tion a#ainst "' " a$$ealed 3ur% &indin#' .-. allo(ed a$$eal, held /shouldn*t hae le&t uestion o& (arrant% to 3ur%.0ssues: 4as the re$resentation made b% /ohnston an inno!ent misre$resentation 0& %es, is the "e& liable&or the dama#e that results &rom this misre$resentationoldin# 8 easons: Ees and o.he Plt& must sho( that there (as a (arrant%

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    15/33

    C. Classi&i!ation o& erms L i#ht to erminate &or Jrea!h

    Hong Kong 1ir hipping Co. Ltd . v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd., [1962] 2 .J. 26

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    16/33

    D. "A?A@S O JAC O COAC

     A. ?easure o& "ama#es: he 0nterests Prote!ted

    uller and Perdue4 The Relian"e 'nterest in Contra"t #a%ages Cb.: 7BDhree interests:estitution interest: unites t(o elements F 1= relian!e b% the $romisee, 2= a resultin# #ain b% the

    $romisor.+$e!tation interest: Promise b% J, no loss on the $art o& A, but there (as an e+$e!tation !reatedthat A lost out on. e!oer% is based on the loss on the e+$e!tation.elian!e interest: Je!ause o& %our $romise, 0 a!ted and no( 0*e lost out. 4hateer 0 relied u$on isno( #one and 0*e lost the mone%timee&&ort 0 $ut out (hen 0 relied on (hat %ou $romised.he goal o! contacts: o $ut the $art% in as #ood a $osition as the% (ould hae been in had therebeen no brea!h.

    M"Rae v. Co%%onwealth #isposals Co%%ission 

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    17/33

    Bowlay Logging Ltd. v. #o%tar Ltd. atio: 0& Part% A in!urs losses that aren*t based on Part% J*s brea!h, then the% (ill not be!om$ensated &or those dama#es.?ain Prin!i$les:0& the onl% e+$e!tation the $art% !an sho( is that the% (ould hae lost more but &or the brea!h, thenthe% (ill be de$endin# on relian!e entirel%. Court &inds that out!ome P is rel%in#

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    18/33

    ,u2)est Ho%es Ltd. v. Thunder!ird Petroleu%s Ltd. 

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    19/33

    J. Certaint%

    atio: 0& a $erson is in a situation (here their $osition re$resents one (here the% ma% $ro&itbased on a !ontra!t, then i& the% are de$ried o& the abilit% to realiQe on that !ontra!t the% (ill

    be able to !laim &or dama#es.?ain Prin!i$les:In!ertaint% (on*t be a bar to re!oer%. 0& a $art% !an sho( that but &or the releant brea!h it (ouldn*t hae entered intoa #ien !ontra!t, then that $art% is &ree &rom the burden or bene&it o& the rest o& the !ontra!t. Jrea!hin# a&idu!iar% dut% in this manner #oes to the heart o& the &idu!iar%*s dut%. 0& the "e& (ere allo(ed to #et a(a%(ith a brea!h o& a & idu!iar% dut% (ith no $enalt%, then similarl% situated &idu!iaries (ould #amble (ith other$eo$le*s mone% F the bene&i!iar% (ould !arr% all the ris, and the &idu!iar% (ould earn all the bene&it.

    D= he !ourt sa%s that the misre$resentation isn*t !ausall% !onne!ted to the dealuation o& the ?IJs F the%are se$arate &rom ea!h other. he uestion to as is ;(hether the loss sustained b% the a$$ellant arosenaturall% &rom a brea!h thereo& or (hether at the time o& !ontra!tin# the $arties !ould reasonabl% hae!ontem$lated the loss &lo(in# &rom the brea!h o& the dut% to dis!lose.> he loss !annot be said to haearose naturall% &rom "*s brea!h F the losses (eren*t &oreseeable.

    Dissent: loss doesn*t naturall% &lo( &rom brea!h o& !ontra!t.atio: 0& the losses su&&ered b% the Plt& do not &lo( dire!tl% &rom the a!tions o& the "e&, then those losses (ill notbe (ill not be !aused b% the "e&*s a!tions

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    20/33

    ". emoteness o& "ama#e

    Hadley  v. Ba6endale 

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    21/33

    Koufos v. Carinikow9 The Heron '' , [1969] .-., Cb.: B6Ba!ts: A$$

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    22/33

    1idler v. un Life &ssuran"e Co. of Canada 

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    23/33

     &sa%ara 3il Corp. v. ea 3il $ 5eneral Corp., [1979] SCC, Cb.: B71a!ts: P his rule is based on t(o $rin!i$les: 1= P (ill be able to re!oer all losses that are reasonabl%!ontem$lated b% the $arties to the !ontra!t (ho are liable &or the brea!h, and 2= res$onsibilit% (ill be on P totae all reasonable ste$s to aoid losses &lo(in# &rom the brea!h

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    24/33

    b. Personal Seri!e)arner Bros. Pi"tures 'n". v. ,elson [19D6] I.G. G.J., Cb.: 91a!ts: "

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    25/33

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    26/33

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    27/33

    @A;

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    28/33

    !. "o!trine o& undamental Jrea!h: A !om$an% e+!ludes themseles &rom liabilit% re: losses or $oor $er&orman!e #uaranteed b% a!ondition or a (arrant%. 4hat ha$$ens i& $arties hae a !om$laint under the !ontra!t

    Hunter 0ngineering Co. 'n". v. yn"rude Canada Ltd. .

    ?ain Prin!i$les:Ter"on F !han#e in the la(' not onl% does the !ontra!t need to be un!ons!ionable at &ormation, but the !ourt(ill reuire a $ubli! $oli!% reason too in order to ste$ in and im$ose liabilit%. Seere limitation o& do!trine o&&undamental brea!h but SCC (on*t #et rid o& it alto#ether F leain# it to the le#islature. Summar% F !ourts (illonl% lend aid to a $art% i& there*s a= un!ons!ionabilit% and b= a $ubli! $oli!% reason to do so.4ilson*s a$$roa!h is re3e!ted' !ourts (on*t loo $ostL&ormation.

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    29/33

    5. COACS 0"IC" JE ?0SPSA0O

     A. ?eanin# o& ?isre$resentation

    Redgrave v. Hurd  

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    30/33

    J. emediesa. raudulent ?isre$resentationb. e#li#ent ?isre$resentation, supra, 2 C

    !. 0nno!ent ?isre$resentation

    )hittington v. eale2Hayne 

    !laim &or dama#es but it (as disallo(ed' / &inds &or "' C.A. dismisses P a$$eal.0ssues: 0s the Plt& entitled to res!ind the !ontra!toldin# 8 easons: o.This !ontra!t (as &or a sale o& #oods. here (as a mistae about the :uality o& the $aintin# and the mistae(as, in a sense, essential and &undamental. The !ourt dis!usses (hether there (as a term re#ardin# thesub3e!t matter and i& there (as, (hether it (as a (arrant% or a !ondition: ;0& it (as a !ondition, the bu%er !ouldre3e!t the $i!ture &or brea!h o& the !ondition at an% time be&ore he a!!e$ted it or (as deemed to hae a!!e$tedit, (hereas, i& it (as onl% a (arrant%, he !ould not re3e!t it but (as !on&ined to a !laim &or dama#es.> The term(as a !ondition in (hi!h a $ur!haser o& a !hattel ma% haethe #oods in his $ossession be&ore re3e!tin# them. o(eer, i& he ee$s the !hattel be%ond the reasonabletime, then the o$tion to return in e+$ires and he*s limited to dama#es onl%. The !ourt dis!usses the &a!t that themisre$resentation (as inno!ent. he misre$resentation (as to the ualit% o& the thin#, not the substan!e o& thethin# itsel&.?ain Prin!i$les:+tension o& time $eriod &or re3e!tion o& a #ood $ostLa!!e$tan!e F !ourt (ants to #ie bu%ers time to !onsider

    the !hattel be&ore re3e!tin# it. Conditions o$en u$ res!ission but onl% u$ to a!!e$tan!e' this !ase e+tends this$eriod, but onl% &or a ;reasonable $eriod> (as in!idental

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    31/33

    b. estitution 0m$ossible

    Kup"hak  v. #ayson Holdings Ltd . o& le!tion.ote F i& misre$resentation had been inno!ent, no res!ission F no #oin# ba! on!e G is e+e!uted.

    !. +e!uted Contra!t

    0nnis v. Klassen, [199] ?an. C.A., S.?.: 95a!ts: "

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    32/33

    6. COACS COC-I"" I" ?0SAG

     A. ?istaes in Assum$tions

    a. Common -a(

    Bell  v. Lever Bros. Ltd., [19D2] .-., Cb.: 56a!ts: P

  • 8/19/2019 Amanda's Winter 2010 Contracts CAN

    33/33

    b. uit%

    olle v. But"her , [195] G.J. C.A., Cb.: 571a!ts: " 0n this !ase, P (as the one (ho brou#ht &or(ard the mistaen in&ormation that " relied on. On!ethe% dis!oered the mistae, P (anted to tae adanta#e o& the mistae and #et his mone% ba!!ontrar% to the G he had ne#otiated (ith ". he G (as &or a rent he a#reed to and (as &or rent$ermitted b% la(.?ain Prin!i$les:

    his !ase adds to the !ate#ories o& results &or mistae: 1= oid, so no !ontra!t' 2= oidable F!ontra!t, but unen&or!eable due to mistae' D=