Remedies for Breach of Contract 8

1、 TOC o 1-7 h z u HYPERLINK l _Toc240266109 Remedies for Breach of Contract PAGEREF _Toc240266109 h 8 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266110 Damages PAGEREF _Toc240266110 h 8 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266111 The Three Categories of Damages PAGEREF _Toc240266111 h 8 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266112 The Compensation Principle PA

2、GEREF _Toc240266112 h 8 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266113 Peevyhouse v. Garland (diminution in value, essential vs. incidental, deterrence against “windfalls) PAGEREF _Toc240266113 h 9 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266114 Radford v. De Froberville (essential vs. incidental, damages vs. equitable remedies, unjust enric

3、hment) PAGEREF _Toc240266114 h 9 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266115 Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd. v. Forsyth (economic waste, introduction of non-pecuniary damages, consumer surplus) PAGEREF _Toc240266115 h 10 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266116 Victory Motors Ltd. v. Bayda (supply and demand and entitlemen

4、t to expectation damages, precursor to mitigation) PAGEREF _Toc240266116 h 10 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266117 Contract Law and Social Ordering PAGEREF _Toc240266117 h 11 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266118 LAW AND ECONOMICS PAGEREF _Toc240266118 h 11 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266119 Other Aspects of the Compensation Princ

5、iple PAGEREF _Toc240266119 h 11 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266120 Anglia Television Ltd. v. Reed (pre-contract expenditures, uncertain expectation damages) PAGEREF _Toc240266120 h 12 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266121 Bowlay Logging v. Domtar Ltd. (reliance damages exceeding expectation damages) PAGEREF _Toc24026612

6、1 h 12 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266122 Chaplin v. Hicks and Kinkel v. Hyman (chance of a profit is compensable) PAGEREF _Toc240266122 h 12 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266123 Limits on the Award of Damages: Remoteness PAGEREF _Toc240266123 h 13 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266124 Hadley v. Baxendale (reasonable foreseeabilit

7、y of loss) PAGEREF _Toc240266124 h 13 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266125 Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd. v. Newman Industries Ltd. (application of reasonable foreseeability concept) PAGEREF _Toc240266125 h 13 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266126 Implied Acceptance of Special Circumstances PAGEREF _Toc240266126 h 14 HYP

8、ERLINK l _Toc240266127 General factors to consider in deciding whether damages are too remote PAGEREF _Toc240266127 h 14 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266128 General purpose of limiting damages through remoteness PAGEREF _Toc240266128 h 15 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266129 Special Problems and Circumstances PAGEREF _T

9、oc240266129 h 15 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266130 Jarvis v. Swans Tours Ltd (Contracts for pleasure, non-pecuniary damages) PAGEREF _Toc240266130 h 15 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266131 Wilson v. Sooter Studios Ltd. (non-pecuniary damages for a peace of mind K) PAGEREF _Toc240266131 h 16 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266132 W

10、harton v. Tom Harris Chevrolet Oldsmobile Ltd. (non-pecuniary damages, requirement of “sensory experience discomfort) PAGEREF _Toc240266132 h 16 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266133 Warrington v. Great-West Life Assurance Co. (contracts promising peace of mind, aggravated damages) PAGEREF _Toc240266133 h 17 HY

11、PERLINK l _Toc240266134 The Test to Employ to Find Non-Pecuniary Damages PAGEREF _Toc240266134 h 18 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266135 Aggravated Damages (dont use this term) and Employment Contracts PAGEREF _Toc240266135 h 18 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266136 Punitive Damages PAGEREF _Toc240266136 h 19 HYPERLINK l

12、_Toc240266137 Limits of the Award of Damages: Mitigation PAGEREF _Toc240266137 h 19 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266138 General Notes on Mitigation PAGEREF _Toc240266138 h 20 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266139 Doctrine of Election: PAGEREF _Toc240266139 h 21 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266140 Date of Assessment of Damages PAGE

13、REF _Toc240266140 h 21 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266141 Equitable Remedies PAGEREF _Toc240266141 h 22 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266142 General Comment on Equitable Remedies PAGEREF _Toc240266142 h 22 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266143 Requirements for an order of specific performance PAGEREF _Toc240266143 h 22 HYPERLINK l

14、 _Toc240266144 Injunctions and undue restraint on trade PAGEREF _Toc240266144 h 23 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266145 Formation of Contract PAGEREF _Toc240266145 h 23 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266146 Offer and Acceptance PAGEREF _Toc240266146 h 23 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266147 Test Applied PAGEREF _Toc240266147 h 23 HY

15、PERLINK l _Toc240266148 Termination of Offers PAGEREF _Toc240266148 h 23 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266149 Acceptance of offer PAGEREF _Toc240266149 h 24 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266150 Communication of acceptance PAGEREF _Toc240266150 h 24 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266151 Contracts made by mail (Postal Acceptance Rule)

16、 PAGEREF _Toc240266151 h 24 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266152 Where is a contract made? (Jurisdictional issues) PAGEREF _Toc240266152 h 24 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266153 Email contracts PAGEREF _Toc240266153 h 25 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266154 Uncertainty in Formation of Contract (unenforceability of agreements to ag

17、ree, incomplete agreements, or contracts with ambiguous or missing essential terms) PAGEREF _Toc240266154 h 25 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266155 Foley v. Classique Coaches (vagueness in price, arbitration clause, ongoing relationship) PAGEREF _Toc240266155 h 25 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266156 Courtney and Fairbai

18、rn Ltd. v. Tolaini Brothers (Hotels) Ltd. (unenforceability of “agreement to agree, one time (not ongoing) relationship) PAGEREF _Toc240266156 h 26 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266157 Empress Towers Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia (good faith) PAGEREF _Toc240266157 h 26 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266158 Other notes on go

19、od faith: PAGEREF _Toc240266158 h 27 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266159 Policy Rationale for Legal formalities (e.g., consideration) PAGEREF _Toc240266159 h 27 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266160 Legal formalities PAGEREF _Toc240266160 h 27 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266161 Statute of Frauds PAGEREF _Toc240266161 h 27 HYPERLI

20、NK l _Toc240266162 Consideration PAGEREF _Toc240266162 h 27 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266163 General Comments on Consideration PAGEREF _Toc240266163 h 28 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266164 Consideration and gifts PAGEREF _Toc240266164 h 28 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266165 Past Consideration PAGEREF _Toc240266165 h 28 HYPE

21、RLINK l _Toc240266166 Mutual Promises (i.e., Consideration continued) PAGEREF _Toc240266166 h 29 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266167 Great Northern Railway Company v. Witham (Mutual promises, framework agreements) PAGEREF _Toc240266167 h 29 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266168 Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon (implied obl

22、igations) PAGEREF _Toc240266168 h 29 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266169 Firm Offers and Unilateral Contracts PAGEREF _Toc240266169 h 30 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266170 Introductory Comments (Read!) PAGEREF _Toc240266170 h 30 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266171 Dawson v. Helicopter Exploration Co Ltd (unilateral vs bilateral

23、 contract) PAGEREF _Toc240266171 h 31 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266172 Can offer be revoked when performance on a unilateral contract has commenced? PAGEREF _Toc240266172 h 31 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266173 Going Transaction Adjustments (GTAs) PAGEREF _Toc240266173 h 32 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266174 Policy consider

24、ations justifying GTAs: PAGEREF _Toc240266174 h 32 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266175 Harris v. Watson (old case. either an unreasonable application of the doctrine of consideration or a holding that legal GTA not found if modification made under duress) PAGEREF _Toc240266175 h 32 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266176 S

25、tilk v. Myrick (old case. strict application of the doctrine of consideration, concerns about duress found in a GTA) PAGEREF _Toc240266176 h 32 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266177 Raggow v. Scougall (Rescission and creation of new contract to validate a GTA. finding of a GTA by holding that old contract was v

26、oided by the mutual acceptance of the GTA. New contract is in place with new terms. This gets around the problem of fresh consideration, one way of doing it) PAGEREF _Toc240266177 h 33 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266178 Stott v. Merit Investment Corporation (Finding of a valid GTA when there is forbearance o

27、n the right to sue) PAGEREF _Toc240266178 h 33 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266179 DCB v. Zellers (cases without any legal merit cannot rely on forbearance) PAGEREF _Toc240266179 h 34 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266180 Gilbert Steel Ltd. v. University Construction Ltd. (estoppel cannot be used as a sword, only as shie

28、ld) PAGEREF _Toc240266180 h 34 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266181 Williams v. Roffey Bros and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd. (UK Case: GTA may be found when a practical advantage is found to be the consideration) PAGEREF _Toc240266181 h 35 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266182 Pao On v. Lau Yiu Long (Economic duress or fra

29、ud, if found, GTA will be unenforceable) PAGEREF _Toc240266182 h 35 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266183 Foakes v Beer (Debt settlement. Payment of a lesser sum for a greater sum is not good consideration but there is an exception) PAGEREF _Toc240266183 h 35 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266184 NAV Canada v. Greater Fred

30、ericton Airport Authority (NBCA finds that K modification unsupported by consideration is binding provided there is no economic duress. IMPORTANT case because it will be found in counter arguments) PAGEREF _Toc240266184 h 36 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266185 Step by step how to approach a GTA issue: PAGEREF

31、 _Toc240266185 h 36 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266186 Reliance as a basis for the enforcement of promises (Promissory Estoppel) PAGEREF _Toc240266186 h 36 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266187 Difference between estoppel and promissory estoppel PAGEREF _Toc240266187 h 37 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266188 Elements of promissory

32、 estoppel PAGEREF _Toc240266188 h 37 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266189 Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd (application of promissory estoppel as a shield) PAGEREF _Toc240266189 h 37 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266190 Combe v Combe (gratuitous promise means no consideration and no contract even

33、 if relied upon) PAGEREF _Toc240266190 h 38 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266191 Criticisms of the sword/shield distinction in estoppel PAGEREF _Toc240266191 h 38 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266192 United States PAGEREF _Toc240266192 h 38 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266193 Arbitrariness of the sword/shield distinction PAGEREF _

34、Toc240266193 h 38 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266194 What is reasonable reliance? PAGEREF _Toc240266194 h 38 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266195 Third Party Beneficiaries and Privity of Contract PAGEREF _Toc240266195 h 39 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266196 Background PAGEREF _Toc240266196 h 39 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266197 Avoidan

35、ce of contractual “box PAGEREF _Toc240266197 h 39 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266198 The Problem with Privity of K as applied to insurance contracts and the resultant case law PAGEREF _Toc240266198 h 40 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266199 London Drugs v. Kuehne & Nagel (employees may benefit from exclusion clause in l

36、ease btwn Landlord and Tenant business) PAGEREF _Toc240266199 h 40 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266200 Laing Property Corp v. All Seasons Display (application and development of London Drugs) PAGEREF _Toc240266200 h 41 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266201 Remaining problems: Fate of employees PAGEREF _Toc240266201 h 41

37、HYPERLINK l _Toc240266202 Fraser River Pile & Dredge v. Can-Dive Services (3P insurance benefits arent just for Ks of service) PAGEREF _Toc240266202 h 41 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266203 But note: this concept doesnt just apply to insurance contracts. It could apply to any case where there is indemnity, ex

38、clusion of liability, etc. PAGEREF _Toc240266203 h 42 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266204 Horizontal and Vertical Privity PAGEREF _Toc240266204 h 42 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266205 Representations and Warranties PAGEREF _Toc240266205 h 42 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266206 Representations and Warranties table and definition

39、s PAGEREF _Toc240266206 h 42 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266207 Policy considerations: PAGEREF _Toc240266207 h 45 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266208 So if you found a misrepresentation? Head over to the parol evidence rule and discuss that PAGEREF _Toc240266208 h 45 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266209 Concurrent Liability in C

40、ontract and Tort: Negligent Misrepresentation PAGEREF _Toc240266209 h 45 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266210 Esso Petroleum Co v. Mardon (concurrent liability in K and tort) PAGEREF _Toc240266210 h 45 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266211 Other essential comments about concurrent liability in K and Tort PAGEREF _Toc24026

41、6211 h 46 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266212 Concurrency (pros/cons of suing in tort/contract) PAGEREF _Toc240266212 h 46 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266213 Mistake PAGEREF _Toc240266213 h 47 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266214 Categories of Mistake PAGEREF _Toc240266214 h 47 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266215 Mistake in Formation PAGE

42、REF _Toc240266215 h 48 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266216 Intro with test and policy factor comments PAGEREF _Toc240266216 h 48 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266217 Raffles v. Wichelhaus (mistake. Outdated concept of consensus ad idem) PAGEREF _Toc240266217 h 48 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266218 Hobbs v. Esquimalt and Nanaimo

43、Railway co (objective reasonable person test for finding of mistake in formation) PAGEREF _Toc240266218 h 49 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266219 Rectification (the test) PAGEREF _Toc240266219 h 49 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266220 Mistaken Payments PAGEREF _Toc240266220 h 50 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266221 Budai v. Ontario

44、 Lottery Corp (reliance on mistaken payment) PAGEREF _Toc240266221 h 50 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266222 Mistaken Assumptions PAGEREF _Toc240266222 h 50 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266223 Introduction PAGEREF _Toc240266223 h 51 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266224 Sherwood v. Walker (mistaken assumption regarding nature of su

45、bject matter) PAGEREF _Toc240266224 h 51 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266225 Bell v. Lever Brothers Ltd (Mistaken assumption regarding essential quality) PAGEREF _Toc240266225 h 51 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266226 Solle v. Butcher (Equitable jurisdiction/relief of mistaken assumption. Read this as it might be applic

46、able whenever mistaken assumption is found) PAGEREF _Toc240266226 h 52 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266227 Examples where equitable jurisdiction might be used: PAGEREF _Toc240266227 h 53 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266228 Frustration PAGEREF _Toc240266228 h 53 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266229 Krell v. Henry (frustration of c

47、ommercial purpose of contract, test for frustration) PAGEREF _Toc240266229 h 54 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266230 ALCOA (Magnitude of risk unforeseen, reformation) PAGEREF _Toc240266230 h 54 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266231 Re Westinghouse Electric Corp (Mere fact that K becomes expensive is not sufficient) PAGERE

48、F _Toc240266231 h 54 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266232 Amalgamated Investment v. John Walker (difficulty of finding frustration in land contract) PAGEREF _Toc240266232 h 55 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266233 KBK No. 138 Ventures Ltd. v. Canada Safeway Ltd (Canadian case, finding frustration in land contract when unf

49、oreseen fundamental change in land occurs. Use this case as the test for frustration) PAGEREF _Toc240266233 h 55 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266234 Remedies for frustration and the Frustrated Contract Act PAGEREF _Toc240266234 h 56 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266235 Control of Contract Power PAGEREF _Toc240266235 h 5

50、6 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266236 Mensch PAGEREF _Toc240266236 h 57 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266237 The chain of gifts PAGEREF _Toc240266237 h 57 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266238 Contract Interpretation PAGEREF _Toc240266238 h 58 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266239 Renner, The Institutions of Private Law PAGEREF _Toc240266239 h

51、 59 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266240 Federal Commerce & Navigation Co. v. Tradax Export SA (the importance of consistency in standard form contracts) PAGEREF _Toc240266240 h 59 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266241 Scott v. Wawanesa (the problem with strict enforcement of standard form contracts) PAGEREF _Toc240266241

52、 h 60 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266242 Techniques of Control SEE THIS IF NEGLIGENCE ISSUE PAGEREF _Toc240266242 h 61 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266243 The Parol Evidence Rule PAGEREF _Toc240266243 h 61 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266244 Bauer v. Bank of Montreal (SCC) - collateral agreement that contradicts the written agr

53、eement is inadmissible due to the parol evidence rule. PAGEREF _Toc240266244 h 63 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266245 The way courts get around Bauer: PAGEREF _Toc240266245 h 63 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266246 Gallen v. Allstate Grain Co. This will occur when the contradictory oral evidence is unequivocal. The cour

54、t may state that reliance on the oral representation was reasonable, and that the oral representation did not contradict the contract, but merely added or varied the written terms. PAGEREF _Toc240266246 h 63 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266247 Zippy Print Enterprises v. Pawliuk (an example of somewhat sophist

55、icated commercial parties not having to rely on the strict wording of the contract, parol evidence rule not applying to a specific representation) PAGEREF _Toc240266247 h 63 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266248 Bank of Nova Scotia v. Zackheim (Ontario case, unlike the others) PER excluded evidence of oral inno

56、cent misrepresentations that contradicted the written terms of a guarantee. PAGEREF _Toc240266248 h 63 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266249 Factors Influencing Application of PER (read this for the test): PAGEREF _Toc240266249 h 64 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266250 Standard Form Contracts PAGEREF _Toc240266250 h 64 HY

57、PERLINK l _Toc240266251 Advantages PAGEREF _Toc240266251 h 64 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266252 Disadvantages PAGEREF _Toc240266252 h 65 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266253 The Ticket Cases PAGEREF _Toc240266253 h 65 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266254 Parker v. South Eastern Railway (party is bound to unsigned agreement with

58、reasonable notice, test to employ) PAGEREF _Toc240266254 h 66 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266255 J Spurling v. Bradshaw (Lord Denning, the more unreasonable the clause, the greater the notice required. The “red hand rule) PAGEREF _Toc240266255 h 67 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266256 Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking (app

59、lication of Lord Dennings “red hand rule, unreasonable condition in a ticket) PAGEREF _Toc240266256 h 67 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266257 Interfoto (Thornton/reasonable notice doctrine applies to clauses generally, not just exemption clauses) PAGEREF _Toc240266257 h 68 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266258 Signed Cont

60、racts and Fundamental Breach PAGEREF _Toc240266258 h 68 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266259 Canadian Approach to Fundamental Breach PAGEREF _Toc240266259 h 69 HYPERLINK l _Toc240266260 Hunter Engineering Co. Inv v. Syncrude Canada Ltd. (doctrine of fundamental breach is a rule of construction only, better to