DOCSLIB.ORG

Law 410 Contracts CAN O'byrne Winter 2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Law 410 Contracts CAN O'byrne Winter 2018 Law 410 Contracts CAN O’Byrne Winter 2018 Contracts CAN Winter ‘18 CONSIDERATION ........................................................................................................................................................1 GENERAL ...............................................................................................................................................................1 EXCHANGES AND BARGAINS ..................................................................................................................................1 The Governors of Dalhouise College at Halifax v The Estate of Arthur Boutilier, Deceased................................1 Brantford General Hospital Foundation v Marquis Estate ................................................................................2 Wood v Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon .....................................................................................................................3 BASIS FOR IMPLIED PROMISE .................................................................................................................................4 Lampleigh v Brathwait ...................................................................................................................................4 BONA FIDE COMPROMISES OF DISPUTES CLAIMS ...................................................................................................4 B.(D.C.) v Arkin ..............................................................................................................................................4 CONSIDERATION: PRE-EXISTING LEGAL DUTY..............................................................................................................5 GENERAL ...............................................................................................................................................................5 DUTY OWED TO A 3RD PARTY ..................................................................................................................................6 Pao On v Lau Yiu Long ....................................................................................................................................6 Illegality Argument ........................................................................................................................................7 DUTY OWED TO THE PROMISOR .............................................................................................................................7 Stilk v Myrick .................................................................................................................................................7 Gilbert Steel Ltd v University Const. Ltd. .........................................................................................................8 Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd. ........................................................................................9 Greater Fredericton Airport Authority Inc v NAV Canada............................................................................... 10 Economic duress (O’Bryne) ........................................................................................................................... 11 SUMMARY FULFILLMENT OF PRE-EXISTING LEGAL DUTY OWED TO A PROMISOR .............................................. 11 REVIEW ........................................................................................................................................................... 11 PROMISES TO ACCPET LESS .................................................................................................................................. 12 Foakes v Beer............................................................................................................................................... 12 PAROLE EVIDENCE RULE ................................................................................................................................... 13 Re Selectmove Ltd........................................................................................................................................ 14 Foot v Rawlings ............................................................................................................................................ 14 Robichaud c Caisse Populaire de Pokemouche Ltee ....................................................................................... 15 Judicature Act RSA 2000, c J-2, s 13(1)........................................................................................................... 16 PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL AND WAIVER .................................................................................................................. 16 Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Company .................................................................................................... 17 Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House Ltd. ........................................................................... 17 John Burrows Ltd v Subsurface Surveys Ltd. .................................................................................................. 19 D&C Builders Ltd. v Rees .............................................................................................................................. 20 Saskatchewan River Bungalows Ltd v Maritime Life Assurance ...................................................................... 21 WJ Alan & Co v El Nasr Export & Import Co ................................................................................................... 22 ESTOPPEL AS A SWORD OR SHIELD ....................................................................................................................... 23 Combe v Combe ........................................................................................................................................... 24 Robichaud v Caisse Populaire (see prior case summary) ................................................................................ 25 INTENTION TO CREATE LEGAL RELATIONS ............................................................................................................. 25 Balfour v Balfour .......................................................................................................................................... 25 PROMISES UNDER SEAL ........................................................................................................................................ 26 Royal Bank v Kiska ....................................................................................................................................... 26 Practice Question on Promissory Estoppel/Duress ........................................................................................ 27 THE REQUIREMENT OF WRITING .............................................................................................................................. 27 PART PERFORMANCE ........................................................................................................................................... 29 Deglman v Guaranty Trust Co. ...................................................................................................................... 29 Thompson v Guaranty Trust Co. ................................................................................................................... 30 PRIVITY OF CONTRACT ............................................................................................................................................. 31 Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v Selfridge & Co. Ltd. ................................................................................... 32 WAYS IN WHICH A THIRD-PARTY MAY ACQUIRE THE BENEFIT ............................................................................... 33 Specific Performance: Beswick v Beswick ...................................................................................................... 33 Beswick v Beswick........................................................................................................................................ 34 TRUST .......................................................................................................................................................... 34 Agency ........................................................................................................................................................ 35 New Zealand Shipping Co. Ltd. v AM Satterthwaite & Co Ltd. ........................................................................ 35 London Drugs Ltd. v Keuhne & Nagel International Ltd. ................................................................................. 36 Edgeworth Construction Ltd v ND LEA & Associates Ltd ................................................................................. 37 Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v Can-Dive Services Ltd. ................................................................................ 38 Privity Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 39 CONTINGENT AGREEMENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 39 Wiebe v Bobsien .......................................................................................................................................... 40 Wiebe v Bobsien .........................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Distinguishing Between Governmental and Proprietary Functions
    Trey Allen, Local Government Immunity to Lawsuits in North Carolina (UNC School of Government) (2018) Chapter 2 Distinguishing Between Governmental and Proprietary Functions The distinction between governmental and proprietary functions is a criti- cal feature of governmental immunity because of the judiciary’s decision to restrict the immunity to claims arising from governmental functions. This chapter reviews the origin of the distinction in immunity cases, the other uses to which the courts have sometimes put the distinction, the rationale for limiting governmental immunity to governmental functions, and the problems the courts have experienced in applying the governmental/propri- etary distinction to particular activities. The chapter then turns to Estate of Williams v. Pasquotank County Parks & Recreation Department,61 the 2012 case in which the North Carolina Supreme Court reformulated the criteria for classifying specific undertakings as either governmental or proprietary. The chapter examines each part of the Williams test and considers the potential impact of Williams on classifications made in earlier cases.62 2.1 Origin of Governmental/Proprietary Distinction The North Carolina Supreme Court first held that cities are immune to tort claims arising from governmental but not proprietary functions in Moffitt v. City of Asheville,63 an 1889 case. Prior to Moffitt, the default rule seems 61. 366 N.C. 195 (2012). 62. This chapter incorporates material from Trey Allen, The Impact of Williams v. Pasquotank County on Local Government Liability, Part I: Public Parks and Government Office Buildings, Loc. Gov’t L. Bull. No. 137 (May 2015), https:// www.sog.unc.edu/sites/www.sog.unc.edu/files/reports/lglb137.pdf.
    [Show full text]
  • Precedent Unbound? Contemporary Approaches to Precedent in Canada
    The Peter A. Allard School of Law Allard Research Commons Faculty Publications Allard Faculty Publications 2007 Precedent Unbound? Contemporary Approaches to Precedent in Canada Debra Parkes Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.allard.ubc.ca/fac_pubs Part of the Courts Commons Citation Details Debra Parkes, "Precedent Unbound? Contemporary Approaches to Precedent in Canada" ([forthcoming in 2007]) 32:1 Man LJ 135. This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Allard Faculty Publications at Allard Research Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Allard Research Commons. Page 1 TITLE: Precedent Unbound? Contemporary Approaches to Precedent in Canada AUTHOR: Debra Parkes SOURCE: Manitoba Law Journal CITED: (2007) 32 Man. L.J. 135 - 162 1 Stare decisis is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase stare decisis et non quieta movere, and may be translated as "to stand by decisions and not to disturb settled matters."1 In Gulliver's Travels, the English satirist Johnathan Swift had Gulliver say: It is a maxim among these lawyers, that whatever hath been done before, may le- gally be done again: and therefore they take special care to record all the deci- sions formerly made against common justice and the general reason of mankind. These under the name of precedents, they produce as authorities, to justify the most iniquitous opinions; and the judges never fail of decreeing accordingly.2 While the notion that Canadian appellate judges slavishly adhere to outdated precedent in a manner contrary to "common justice and the general re ason of mankind" does not accurately describe the current reality, there remains a lively and important debate about the functions, values and limits of "abiding by things decided" in common law systems.3 In this vein, Justices Steel and Freedman in the recent R.
    [Show full text]
  • Recovering Rylands: an Essay for Robert Rabin
    DePaul Law Review Volume 61 Issue 2 Winter 2012: Symposium - Festschrift Article 10 for Robert Rabin Recovering Rylands: An Essay for Robert Rabin Gregory C. Keating Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation Gregory C. Keating, Recovering Rylands: An Essay for Robert Rabin, 61 DePaul L. Rev. 543 (2012) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol61/iss2/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RECOVERING RYLANDS: AN ESSAY FOR ROBERT RABIN Gregory C. Keating* INTRODUCTION Professor Robert Rabin's discussion of Rylands v. Fletcher appears as something of an aside in a lovely and influential article on the rise of fault liability. That article-The Historical Development of the Fault Principle:A Reinterpretation'-isone among a number of influ- ential, widely admired papers that Rabin has written on central topics in the law of torts.2 This Festschrift has provided the pleasurable op- portunity to revisit several of these papers and to discover that they are even richer and more instructive than I remembered. We-or at least I-remember important papers by recalling their fundamental claims and insights. There is much to be said for this form of mental indexing, but one of its costs is forgetting the enormous richness of genuinely distinguished papers. The best papers resist reduction even to their general lessons.
    [Show full text]
  • Stare Decisis and Due Process Amy Coney Barrett Notre Dame Law School, [email protected]
    Notre Dame Law School NDLScholarship Journal Articles Publications 2003 Stare Decisis and Due Process Amy Coney Barrett Notre Dame Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Amy C. Barrett, Stare Decisis and Due Process, 74 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1011 (2003). Available at: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/450 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STARE DECISIS AND DUE PROCESS AMY CONEY BARRETT* INTRODUCTION Courts and commentators have devoted a great deal of attention lately to the constitutional limits of stare decisis. The Eighth Circuit's decision in Anastasoff v. United States has sparked scholarly and judicial debate about whether treating unpublished opinions as devoid of precedential effect violates Article III.1 Debates have also erupted over the question whether Congress has the power to abrogate stare decisis by statute,2 and the related question whether stare decisis is a * Assistant Professor, Notre Dame Law School. Jesse Barrett, Joe Bauer, A.J. Bellia, Bill Kelley, Orin Kerr, Chip Lupu, John Nagle, Bo Rutledge, Jay Tidmarsh, and Julian Velasco provided helpful comments on earlier drafts of this Article. Keith Eastland provided excellent research assistance. Much of the work on this Article was done while I was an Olin Fellow at George Washington Law School, and I thank the Olin Foundation and GW Law School for their support.
    [Show full text]
  • Liability for Concurrent Breach of Contract
    Washington University Law Review Volume 73 Issue 1 January 1995 Liability for Concurrent Breach of Contract Daniel J. Bussel UCLA School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Contracts Commons Recommended Citation Daniel J. Bussel, Liability for Concurrent Breach of Contract, 73 WASH. U. L. Q. 97 (1995). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol73/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LIABILITY FOR CONCURRENT BREACH OF CONTRACT DANIEL J. BUSSEL* I. INlODUCTION If A and B perform independent concurrent acts of negligence each sufficient to injure C, who suffers an indivisible harm as a result, traditionally C can collect damages from either A or B, as C chooses.! If A pays a disproportionate share of C's damages, then A may assert rights of contribution to compel B to reimburse A up to B's proportional share of C's damages. If A and B independently concurrently breach contracts, each breach being sufficient to injure C, who suffers an indivisible harm as a result, ought the same rules apply? In the absence of a specific agreement of the parties,2 there are four plausible solutions to allocating losses occasioned by concurrent breach of contract. One might: I) excuse both breaches on the ground that in each case the other breach is a supervening cause of the plaintiff's harm; 2) import tort notions of joint and several liability; 3) impose apportioned (several but not joint) liability; or 4) identify the more responsible breacher, hold it for the full damages and excuse the other.
    [Show full text]
  • Tort Law Is State Law: Why Courts Should Distinguish State and Federal Law in Negligence- Per-Se Law Barbara Kritchevsky [email protected]
    American University Law Review Volume 60 | Issue 1 Article 2 2010 Tort Law is State Law: Why Courts Should Distinguish State and Federal Law in Negligence- Per-Se Law Barbara Kritchevsky [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr Part of the Conflicts of Law Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Kritchevsky, Barbara (2010) "Tort Law is State Law: Why Courts Should Distinguish State and Federal Law in Negligence-Per-Se Law," American University Law Review: Vol. 60: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol60/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Tort Law is State Law: Why Courts Should Distinguish State and Federal Law in Negligence-Per-Se Law This article is available in American University Law Review: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol60/iss1/2 BARBARA KRITCHEVSKY.OFFTOPRINTER 60.1 TORT LAW IS STATE LAW: WHY COURTS SHOULD DISTINGUISH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW IN NEGLIGENCE-PER- SE LITIGATION BY BARBARA KRITCHEVSKY TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................. 72 I. The Doctrine of Negligence Per Se .................................................. 76 A. The Evolving Rationales for Negligence Per Se ...................... 76 B. The Scope of Negligence-Per-Se Liability ...............................
    [Show full text]
  • Privity of Contract Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties
    PRIVITY OF CONTRACT CONTRACTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THIRD PARTIES LAW COMMISSION LAW COM No 242 The Law Commission (LAW COM No 242) PRIVITY OF CONTRACT: CONTRACTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THIRD PARTIES Item 1 of the Sixth Programme of Law Reform: The Law of Contract Presented to Parliament by the Lord High Chancellor .. by Command of Her Majesty July 1996 LONDON: HMSO E18.20 - - Cm 3329 The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Commissioners are: The Honourable Mrs Justice Arden DBE, Chairman Professor Andrew Burrows Miss Diana Faber Mr Charles Harpum Mr Stephen Silber QC The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London, WClN 2BQ. The terms of this report were agreed on 19 June 1996. I .. 11 THE LAW COMMISSION PRIVITY OF CONTRACT: CONTRACTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THIRD PARTIES CONTENTS Paragraph Page SECTION A: BACKGROUND PART I: INTRODUCTION 1 PART 11: THE PRESENT LAW AND CALLS FOR REFORM 1. The Present Law 2.1 6 (1) A Brief Statement of the Third Party Rule in Contract 2.1 6 (2) Development of the Third Party Rule 2.2 6 (3) Existing Exceptions to, or Circumventions ofJ the Third Party Rule 2.8 9 Trust of the Promise 2.8 9 Covenants Concerning Land 2.10 10 Tort of Negligence 2.13 12 Agency 2.15 14 Assignment 2.16 15 Collateral Contracts 2.18 16 Techniques Used to Enable Third Parties to Take the Benefit of Exclusion Clauses 2.19 16 Promisee’s Remedies Assisting the Third Party
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Examination of Privity of Conract in UCC Implied Warranty Actions Barbara Stuetzer
    Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 11 Article 10 Issue 3 Spring 1980 1980 Knox v. North American Car Corp.: Re-Examination of Privity of Conract in UCC Implied Warranty Actions Barbara Stuetzer Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj Part of the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Barbara Stuetzer, Knox v. North American Car Corp.: Re-Examination of Privity of Conract in UCC Implied Warranty Actions, 11 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 637 (1980). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol11/iss3/10 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago Law Journal by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Knox v. North American Car Corp.: Re- Examination of Privity of Contract in UCC Implied Warranty Actions INTRODUCTION Products liability law and strict liability in tort' have grown rap- idly in the past fifteen years. A key factor in this development has been the erosion of the doctrine of privity of contract as a requisite to recovery by a user of a defective product in actions against a remote manufacturer. The doctrine retains viability in warranty actions by non-purchasing users of the defective product. In Knox v. North American Car Corp.,2 the Illinois Appellate Court af- firmed the doctrine by holding that an employee of a consignee of a leased railroad boxcar lacked the requisite privity to qualify as a third party beneficiary of an implied warranty in an action filed under the UCC.' This article will analyze the doctrine of privity in Illinois and evaluate its retention in products liability actions for breach of warranty.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining Dicta
    GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2005 Defining Dicta Michael B. Abramowicz George Washington University Law School, [email protected] Maxwell L. Stearns Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael Abramowicz, Defining Dicta, 57 Stan. L. Rev. 953 (2005) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Defining Dicta by Michael Abramowicz* and Maxwell Stearns** I. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................3 II. THE PROBLEMS OF DICTA ..............................................................................................9 A. Bakke ......................................................................................................................11 1. Justice Powell’s Opinion...................................................................................13 2. Analysis of Justice Powell’s Opinion ...............................................................15 a. A Presumptive Definition ...........................................................................16 i. Necessary propositions and sufficient propositions ............................16 ii. The problem of alternative
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Common Law
    The Evolution of Common Law Nicola Gennaioli and Andrei Shleifer1 Revised, August 2006 Abstract We present a new model of law-making by appellate courts where judges influenced by policy preferences can distinguish precedents at some cost. We find a cost and a benefit of diversity of judicial views. On the one hand, policy motivated judges distort the law away from efficiency. On the other hand, diversity of judicial views fosters legal evolution and increases the law’s precision. A central finding of our paper is what we call the Cardozo Theorem: even if judges are strongly motivated by personal agendas, legal evolution is on average beneficial because it washes out judicial biases and renders the law more precise. We stress the evolutionary adaptability of common law and shed some light on the areas of law where such adaptability is more beneficial. 1 University of Stockholm and Harvard University, respectively. We are grateful to Olivier Blanchard, Filipe Campante, Edward Glaeser, Claudia Goldin, Oliver Hart, Elhanan Helpman, Fausto Panunzi, Torsten Persson, Richard Posner, Ilia Rainer, Alan Schwartz, Kathryn Spier, David Strömberg, an anonymous referee and the editor of this Journal, and especially Louis Kaplow for helpful comments. 1 1. Introduction In a common law legal system, such as that of the U.S. and the U.K., many important laws are made not by legislatures, but by appellate courts deciding specific cases and thus creating precedents. Judge-made law is dominant in commercial areas of law, such as contract, property, and tort. Judge-made legal rules promote or undermine economic efficiency when the Coase (1960) theorem does not apply.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economic Loss Doctrine: Distinguishing Economic Loss from Non-Economic Loss, 91 Marq
    Marquette Law Review Volume 91 Article 6 Issue 4 Summer 2008 The conomicE Loss Doctrine: Distinguishing Economic Loss From Non-Economic Loss Ralph C. Anzivino Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Ralph C. Anzivino, The Economic Loss Doctrine: Distinguishing Economic Loss From Non-Economic Loss, 91 Marq. L. Rev. 1081 (2008). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol91/iss4/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ECONOMIC LOSS DOCTRINE: DISTINGUISHING ECONOMIC LOSS FROM NON-ECONOMIC LOSS RALPH C. ANZIVINO* I. INTRODUCTION When a product fails there are three types of damages that can result. Those damages are identified by the courts as economic loss damages, personal injury damages, and non-economic loss damages. In any given case, there may be one, two, or all three types. It is clear that when a defective product causes personal injury damages, that case will generally proceed as a tort case. However, when the defective product causes economic, non-economic damages, or both, the economic loss doctrine comes into application. The economic loss doctrine requires that courts distinguish economic loss from non-economic loss. Those damages found to be economic loss can only be recovered through contract law. On the other hand, damages deemed to be non-economic loss are recoverable through tort law.
    [Show full text]
  • Distinguishing the Concept of Strict Liability in Tort from Strict Products Liability: Medusa Unveiled
    Digital Commons at St. Mary's University Faculty Articles School of Law Faculty Scholarship 2003 Distinguishing The Concept Of Strict Liability In Tort From Strict Products Liability: Medusa Unveiled Charles E. Cantú St. Mary's University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/facarticles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Charles E. Cantú, Distinguishing The Concept Of Strict Liability In Tort From Strict Products Liability: Medusa Unveiled, 33 U. Mem. L. Rev. 823 (2003). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Distinguishing the Concept of Strict Liability in Tort from Strict Products Liability: Medusa Unveiled CHARLES E. CANTU* I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................. 824 II. A N IM A LS ...................................................................... 828 A. TrespassingAnimals ................................................... 829 B. Domesticated Animals with Vicious Tendencies ......... 834 C. Animals Whose Habitat is Usually in the Wild ........... 837 III. ULTRA-HAZARDOUS ACTIVITIES ................................... 839 IV . N UISANCE .................................................................... 848 V . M ISREPRESENTATION
    [Show full text]