Assignment:
Question 1
Explain the types of mistakes and the types of misrepresentation which can give rise to a court being required to interpret a contract. What remedies are appropriate to each type?
Question 2
Distinguish among duress, undue influence, and unconscionability and give two examples of each. Describe the remedies available for each.
Question 3
Describe the type of assignments which may occur. Give two examples of each. Consider what requirements are necessary to make an enforceable assignment.
Question 4
Describe the various ways in which a contractual relationship can come to an end, including partial performance, conditions and warranties, tender of performance, impossibility, anticipatory breach, fundamental breach, frustration, impossibility, and exemption clauses.
Question 5
Discuss the remedies available for a breach or non-performance of a contract. Include a discussion of how damages may be limited, the difference between a deposit and a down payment, the requirement of mitigation, and the availability of specific performance and injunction.
Question 6
Discuss condition precedent and condition subsequent.
CASE ONE
Facts: Hatfield, the owner of a large farm, wanted to change his combine because of the time it took to do the harvest though the current equipment. At an agricultural exhibition, he found a new self-propelled combine and placed an order for it through his local dealer. The dealer was unfamiliar with the new machine and was provided assurance from the manufacturer for the fitness of equipment for Hatfield.
The machine did not work well and got a lot of problems. Hatfield endured inconvenience and the time it took to harvest was not much different from his old equipment. So, Hatfield wanted to return the machine and demanded a refund. However, the dealer refused his request and showed him agreement which showed that there was no warranty or condition on the product.
Issues: Does Hatfield have the right to return the machine and claim a refund? Is the dealer liable under the agreement? Is the manufacturer vicariously liable?
Law: The court would decide that there was an innocent misrepresentation which induced Mr. Hatfield to purchase the machine: Royal Bank of Canada v. Chorkawy [1994] M.J.No. 561 (Quicklaw). The court may also do the interpretation of the agreement because there might be a mistake in the contract: Couturier v. Hasitie (1856) 5 HL
Arguments: Interpretation of contracts, Mistake, Misrepresentation
CASE TWO
Facts: Graham was a well-known and highly regarded architect. Campbell who was a country man from Scotland asked Graham to design a classic Galloway cottage (a type of stone cottage from southwest Scotland) in southern Ontario on his return from his vacations in a remote part of Scotland. Campbell indicated that it was important for the plan to be ready before the construction season so that he can build the cottage on his own. Graham was requested to complete the design within two weeks and should be compliant with all the regulations and bylaws. Graham had difficulty with approving the design in the limited time and had to put in overtime to complete the work on time. On his return, Campbell was happy with the design but was unwilling to pay the discounted price of $14,000 for it. Campbell sued for lateness of the designs while Graham sued him for the full amount of $21,000.
Issues: Is Campbell liable under the contract? If so, what would be the remedies for Graham? Is Graham liable under the contract? If so, what would be the remedies for Campbell?
Law: The court might uphold that Campbell's breach of the contract might entitle Graham to terminate the agreement: Lalonde v. Coleman 67 Man. R. (2d) 187
Arguments: Discharge by performance; Remedies for the breach of contract.
CASE THREE
Facts: John Brown ordered a custom-made bedroom suite with an expensive French finish from Joe's Custom Cabinetry and put down a deposit of ten percent of the price of $7,500. A few days later when he decided to purchase the bedroom suite from the Harvest House Store, he called Joe to cancel the order. But Joe refused to cancel the order and stated that John Brown would have to go through with deal.
Issues: Is John Brown liable under the agreement? If so, what will be the cabinetmaker's remedy?
Law: Henderson & Co v Williams [1895] 1 QB 521
Conclusion: John Brown is liable under the agreement, and the cabinet-maker can take the deposit and sue for the price of the good.
Arguments: The Sale of Goods Act is applied to the transaction. When the buyer defaults, the seller has an unpaid seller's lien against the goods.
CASE FOUR
Facts: Fiona MacFarlane was a door-to-door sales representative in the business of selling computers and all their peripherals. Mrs. Mackay, a retired elderly schoolteacher, wanted to send pictures to her grandchildren, she wanted immediate delivery. Because of this need, Fiona convinced Mackay to buy her powerful computer and its peripherals. But the computer happened to be crashed to the ground by Mackay's old blind dog. Since the deal had been reached, Mrs. Mackay had to pay for it. it turned out that the particular scanner purchased from
Fiona could only work with the model of computer that Fiona had been selling. When Mackay went to Fiona's store, she found that the product she bought was a "grey market" product which is illegally sold in Canada. Then, she refused to pay for the computer, the scanner or the digital camera.
Issues: Explain the legal positions and liability of the parties.
Law: The court might uphold that Fiona hid the truth and breach Consumer Protection Act: Prebushewski v. Dodge City Auto (1984) Ltd.
Arguments: Part of the contract did not confirm to the requirements set out in the provincial consumer protection act. The SGA is applied to this situation. Consumer protection legislation.