Facts and rules Flashcards
(28 cards)
McCrae v Commonwealth Disposals Comm.
Ship took a venture to pick up something that they were told was waiting for them. However, when they got there, it did not exist. The question was whether P could recover the amt of the wasted expenditure as a foreseeable loss
The court said yes
Rule: The damage or loss must be reasonably foreseeable as coming from the breach of contract
Sunshine Vacation Villas v Governor and Company of Adventures
P given licenses to operate travel agencies but then D renewed with previous agencies.
Rule: if you are suing for loss of profit, you want to be put in the position you would be in had the contract not been breached
Chaplin v Hicks
The girl and the modeling competition. She sued for lost opportunity to be picked for the winner
Rule: Even if it is difficult to figure out the damages that should be awarded, this does not mean there should be no damages awarded
Groves v John Wunder Co
D did not leave the land as they should have so there was a breach of contract.
Rule: The guage of damage adopted is the difference between the market value of the plaintiff’s land in the condition it was when the contract was made anf what it would have been if defendant had performed
Nu-West Homes Ltd v Thunderbird Petroleums Ltd
Contractor messed up the building of a home. P had to bring in new contractor to fix the problem. Sued on the basis of cost of completion
Rule: where the cost of rectification is great in comparison to the nature of the defect, the court will not force a slavish following of the precise specifications of the contract
Jarvis v Swans Tours
Sued for damages because his trip did not live up to the brochures
Rule:
Hadley v Baxendale
Leading authority on remedies
Delivery of a shaft was delayed and the plaintiffs lost work
Rule: where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken, the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such breach should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract
Koufos v Czarnikow
The issue n this case was whether a plaintiff can recover a loss of a kind which the defendant, when he made the contract, ought to have realized was not unlikely to result from a breach of contract causing delay in delivery
Rule: A damage cannot be too remote. If it is, then the plaintiff will not be able to recover the loss
Whiten v Pilot Insurance
House fire and insurance company would not pay because they said it was arson even though there was no evidence of that…this case dealt with punitive damages
Rule: there needs to be an independent actionable wrong apart from the breach of contract to get punitive damages
Fidler v Sunlife Assurance Co of Canada
D denied long term disability benefits for P
Rule:
Victoria Laundry Ltd v Newmab Industry Ltd
Sued for loss of business profits
Rule: A damage must be reasonably foreseeable in order for it not to be too remote
Asamera Oil Corp v Sea Oil and general corp
P owned shares in Asamera. Had an agreement with D but instead D sold the shares in breach of contract
Court said he was required to mitigate his losses once he knew the contract had been breach
Southcott Estates Inc v Toronto Catholic District School Board
contract to purchase land and P sued for specific performance
Rule: The courts will only allow you to have specific performance and not have to mitigate losses if you can prove that the land in question was sufficiently unique and therefore, hard to replace…not entitled to damages because you did not suffer any damages that couldn’t have been avoided through mitigation
Evans v Teamsters Local Union Number 31
Deals with employee’s duty to mitigate damages for wrongful dismissal
Rule: If employee and employer are still on good terms, there is a chance that the employee will be required to go back to work with the same employer in order to mitigate damages/losses
Semelhago v Paramadevan
they entered into agreement to purchase property. sued for specific performance. Once it was all done, the property value had gone up and D argued that P should not get the added amount
Rule: the appropriate time to assess damages is the day of the decision in court
Shatilla v Feinstein
A case that dealt with liquidated damages clause
Either liquidated clause is a true estimate or it is a penalty clause in which the amount far exceeds the loss
Rule: when damages which may arise out of the breach of a contract are in their nature uncertain, the law permits the parties to agree beforehand as to the amount to be paid in case of breach
Stockloser v Johnson
where there is no forfeiture clause in the agreement, if buyer defaults before all instalment payments are made, then as long as the seller keeps the contract open, the buyer cannot recover money paid in part payment. But once the seller rescinds, the buyer is entitled to recover payments made subject to seller’s right to damages. When there is a forfeiture clause, the buyer cannot recover money paid. But in equity, the buyer may have a remedy if the forfeiture clause is penal (out of all proportion to damage and it would be unconscionable for the seller to retain the money
John E Drodge Holdings v 805062 Ontario Ltd
Specific performance comes into play if the plaintiff can demonstrate that the premises have a quality that makes them especially suitable for the proposed use and that they cannot be reasonably duplicated elsewhere
Warner Bros Pictures Inc v Nelson
film actress who had a contract with a restrictive covenant in it.
Rule: Where a contract of personal service contains negative covenants the enforcement of which will not amount either to a degree of specific performance of the positive covenants of the contract or to the giving of a decree under which the defendant must either remain idle or perform those positive covenants, the court will enforce those negative covenants
Elsley Case
Analysis for whether a non-compete clause is enforceable. The clause has to be justified because they are contrary to public policy and they have to be reasonable as between the parties themselves
Zipper Transportation Services v Korstrom 1997
This case dealt with a non-compete clause and it was found to be enforceable after using the analysis from the Elsley Case
Zipper Transportation Services v Korstrom 1998
Also dealt with the same non compete clause as in the 1997 case. Court said that there are a number of tests when deciding on interlocutory injunctions:
Must be a clear actionable issue to be tried
Whether there was irreparable harm to the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted
Whether the defendant will suffer markedly greater harm if it is granted
Machtinger v Hoj Industries
Issue: in the absence in a contract of employment of a legally enforceable term providing for notice of termination, on what basis is a court to imply a notice period, and to what extent is intention to be taken into account in fixing an implied term of reasonable notice in an employment contract?
Thornton Case
deals with exemption clauses
Rule: if the other party is not aware of the conditions prior to the making of the contract, they cannot be incorporated into the contract later on and are not enforceable
