Two equitable remedies: specific performance, injunction ...



Adil KhanContracts Midterm OUTLINE- WaldronHow to tackle a contract problem?Identify issues: Step 1: Is there a contract?OfferAcceptanceConsiderationStep 2: If there is, what’s the remedy?Relevant factsAnalysis:Is there a contract?Is there a remedy?Damages?Mitigation?Is there a remoteness problem here?Is there a case for specific performance?A brief history of contracts law13th C.: to enforce a promise, a person had to use a writ of covenant (court document forcing someone into a claim)– a signed and sealed written document of the promise – still in use todayaction could also be taken on a claim of debtwager of law: getting 11 people to swear upon your version of the story15th C.: introduction of notion of trespassDefendant had to commit a wrong recognized by the law to warrant damages.Trespass on the case (trespass assumpsit): an undertaken duty that was done badlyDuties of certain professionsDeceit emerged as an action for fraudulent action16th C.: pressure to allow actions for simple noncompliance with a promiseex: action for failure to convey land17th C.:1602: Slades Case: Slade brought action against someone for breach of promise to paydidn’t force the action as debt. But allowed the action under assumpsit (now just called action for brief of contract)1677: Parliament passes Statute of Frauds – which required certain kind of contracts to be evidenced in writingTowards a working definition of a “contract”A Contract is a promise that the law will enforceEnforcement is a key issue (remedy)SanctionFinancial or otherwiseCompel performanceCompensation as damagesLimitations imposed on contract breakerFormal recognition that a party has been wrongedRestitutionIncarcerationwhat constitutes a promise worthy of legal sanctionexpectationspractical problems: too many trivial matters for courts to decidecontextpromises made under duressintentions and/or previous actionsestablishment of substantial harmreasonable person standardRemedies for breach of promiseDamages - The BasicsINTERESTways to measure damagesPURPOSEmoral underpinnings and social purposeMEASUREJUSTICERestitutionPrevent unjust enrichment (cannot “steal” from another by breaching)Benefit to defendant. Backward lookingCorrectiveRelianceUndoing the harm. Like insurance, encourages people to rely on promise, since resulting losses compensatedLoss to plaintiff. Backward looking. Puts plaintiff into position as though promise never made i.e. restore status quo. Includes restitution. $$ = what P started with – what P ended up with.RestorativeExpectation[DEFAULT MEASURE]Secure benefit. Treat as “money in the bank”. Encourages keeping of contracts, compensates lost opportunities. Hence promotes free-market capitalist credit economy and long complex chains of transactions.Expected benefit. Forward looking. Puts plaintiff into position would have been if promise had been kept, as far as money can do. Also sometimes court-ordered specific performance. $$ = what P would have ended up with – what P actually ended up withDistributive i.e. re-distributes assets from point of time the contract was made i.e. re-arranges status-quoPunitivePunish / Deter. Almost unknown, hence encourages economically efficient breachesLoss plus. RetributiveExpectation DamagesThe presumptive starting point for damages.Goal is to put the innocent party in the position they would have been in, had the contract been fully performed.Formula: [Reliance Damages] + [Lost Profits] = [Expectation Damages]If Expectation Damages are too speculative or are otherwise inappropriate, the courts may move to 2: Reliance Damages.Reliance Damages - compensating for the expectationGoal is to put the innocent party in the position they would have been in, had they never entered the contract - trying to unwind the promise so as it was never madeIncludes expenses incurred in reliance on the contract.Subject to the duty to mitigate.If there are no Reliance Damages, or if they are otherwise inappropriate, the court may move to 3: Restitution Damages.Restitution Damages - preventing ‘unjust enrichment’Specific Performance – available in some transactionsUnusual, as not often will a court order someone to fulfill a promiseWould be termed as an equitable remedyThe interests protectedWetheim v. Chicoutimi Pulp Company [1991] English Privy CouncilAtkinson: principle behind monetary compensation must place aggrieved party in the same position if the contract had been carried outTwo measures of damages:Restoring pre-contract positionCompensating for if the contract had been executedEXPECTATION measure OF DAMAGES enunciated by Atkins: parties should be placed in the position that would have been present should the contract have been performedConsiders not only costs wasted, but also lost opportunity costEnsures censure for contractual breachesContract is largely a transfer of riskIf you don’t enforce expectation damages, risk absorbed by the innocent partyDifferent from reliance measure of damages: damages designed to restore the injured party to the economic position they occupied at the time the contract was enteredOften less than expectation damages, but includes costs that the plaintiff has expended due to the contract and can no longer be recovered now that the contract is brokenRestitutionary interest would restore parties to the position if the contract never took placeVery few grounds within which you can claim ‘frustration of contract’Most scenarios place the contracting parties as responsible to carrying through the contract regardless of good reasons not to.How to measure expectancy damages?This measure seeks to put you back in the position you would have been in if the contract was not made. Normally speaking when dealing with sale of an item and the vendor refuses to sell it your measure of damages will usually be the difference for what you were going to pay and the market price of the item.Bollenback v. Continental Casualty Company (Oregon S.C. 1965)Facts: Plaintiff was ignored by his insurance company upon request for a claim. Emerged that the company had mistakenly terminated the contract years prior for non-payment.Arguments:Plaintiff: action taken against the defendant due to the repudiated contract, asking for return of all premiums paid under the policyDefendant: plaintiff has a claim for damages but not on the basis of rescission as an internal error caused the contract to be voidedDecision: Lower court found in favor of plaintiff. Appeal unsuccessful.Reasoning:Restitutionary measure would restore to him the premiums for which he paid but received no reciprocal service.Decides that plaintiff should only be compensated the premiums paid since the defendant disregarded the contract - partial rescission.So for the years after which the company thought he was not contracted but was still paying dues, he will be repaid as the protection for which these payments were being made was not in force. Prevents unjust enrichment of defendant.Notable mentions:Establishes the ground of the rescission of a contract to be a valid remedyRescission means to unwind the contract from the beginning and pretend it’s as if we never had the contractTotal rescission would be all premiums paidOnly a ‘total failure of consideration’ would merit rescissionInsurance contracts are thought of as special contracts entailing special dutiesA contract of utmost good faith, inclines court toward a restitutionary measureAnglia Television Ltd v. Reed [1972] Q.B.Facts: Reed, an American, backed out of a film to which he had contractually committed in England. Anglia cannot find an adequate replacement and thus are forced to scrap the entire project. Take action against Mr. Reed for their reliance interest.Arguments:Plaintiff: Mr. Reed owes damages not for loss of profits, as the film was never made, but for wasted expenditure. The entirety of the costs of the project must fall upon him.Defendant: Accepts liability but only for expenses undertaken after the signing of his contract, which comes to 850 poundsDecision: Lower court held in favor of Anglia. Subsequent appeal dismissed. Reliance awarded on pre-contract and post-contract expenses.Reasoning by Lord Denning:Major premise: if the plaintiff claims the wasted expenditure he is not limited to the expenditure incurred after the contract was concluded.Minor premise: Mr. Reed knew commitments had been made prior to his contract and knew the duties that came with his promise to work.Notable mentions:Court will consider reliance damages as an alternative when it can’t be established what the expectancy damages areAlso could not claim expected profits because of obvious evidentiary problemInstead, chose to claim the sunk costs of the abandoned project.One can claim either expenses or profits, but not bothA.I. Ogus in “Damages for Pre-Contract Expenditure” (1972) criticizes Anglia judgmentQuestions the basis behind awarding damages for pre-contract expenses.Danger of leaving the plaintiff in a better position even if the contract had been carried outMust be careful not to be punitive and be only compensatoryPrecedent allows parties to protect themselves against the consequences of making a bad bargainDecision in Bolle Logging and Boltar an example of a fortuitous breach of contract as it saved one party from completing a unprofitable ventureContract breaker in this case not required to pay damages because the opposing party would have lost on the deal had it been completedHawkins v. McGee (1929)Facts: Hawkins contracts McGee for a surgical procedure. Results are unsatisfactory. Plaintiff takes action on breach of promise to make hand ‘perfect’.Arguments:Plaintiff: Defendant guaranteed results that did not materialize and appropriate damages need to be awarded.Defendant: No contractual relationship was entered into. Damages awarded by lower court are excessive. Appeal here.Decision: Lower court allows expectancy damages; difference between the hand delivered and a perfectly good hand. Appeal successful and a new trial ordered.Reasoning by Branch: Weren’t able to justify awarding damages due to harm, but solely in terms of the contract that was unusually entered into.Special problems in measurementCarson v. Willitts (1930)Facts: Only one of three exploratory oil wells that were promised were dug by the defendant. The difficulty of assessing the damages does not equate to a reason to refuse damagesExpectancy:Could look at cost of drillingAnother possibility would be to measure the chance of finding oilLower court decided it would be the cost of drilling that should be recoveredHigher court reassess and says it must be assessed on the chance of finding oilWhat is the chance worth? The answer: is the market value, which is what a reasonable person is willing to pay for itApply this principle to the case, and the chance is worth the cost he was willing to pay for the drillingSCC verdict reflect this: Sunshine v. Dolly (1969)Standard measure of damages for failure to perform work: difference between contract price and market priceGroves v. John Wunder Co (Minn. SC 1939)Facts: Defendant failed to carry out a construction project that involved altering the land of the plaintiff. Plaintiff is appealing the meagre $15,000 awarded in damages by the lower court.Reasoning:Majority by Stone J.: Orders a new trial to reassess the damages which should have covered the cost of the performance of the contract. The fact that there is little value in the land at present is of no relevance. The plaintiff is entitled to what his contract with the defendant laid out.Dissent by Julius and Olson: if the value of the property is only 12K, any judgement that give the plaintiff more ignores the market value and gives the plaintiff more than the contract had in mind.Notable mentions:The standard measure of damages for failure to perform work is tricky because in this case the contract was not profitable, thus the plaintiff could be placed in a better position that at the beginning of the contractHigher court decides against lower court, says that the principles are clear in this matter, it is of no concern whether the contract was economically insensible ‘Ugly fountain example’: should be able to claim damages for non-performance even though it reduced the value of my landVolume problemsusually apply to sale issuessale of goods statutes are provincial. All common law provinces have such legislation. Based on English sale of goods act, attempt to codify law relating to the sale of itemsdamages typically speaking are contract price versus the market price, but on sale questions; issues of supply and demand emerge, expectancy damages used to look at whether the seller can resell the itemLost Volume problem: If you agree to sell someone and they refuse to take it. And then you sell it to another for the same price. You’ve lost nothing. Applies to Charter and Thompson casesThompson (W.L.) Ltd. v. Robinson (Gunmakers) Ltd. [1955]Facts: Defendants had contracted to buy a car from the plaintiff. Pulled out of the contract. Decision: in favour of the plaintiff the profit margin of the saleReasoning:Defendant claimed there was an available market to sell at the fixed price. What therefore had the plaintiff lost?However, plaintiff returned the car to the supplier because apparently there was no market for the car. Lost the profit margin on the sale of the car.Charter v. Sullivan (QB, 1957)Facts: Similar to Thompson. Defendants withdrew from contract with plaintiff to buy a car. Difference was this time demand exceeded the supplyDecision: Appeal by defendants allowed. Damages reduced to nominal sum.Note on Loss of ChancePlaintiff can recover damages for lost chance if four criteria are met:Establish on balance of probabilities that but for the defendant’s action, the chance to obtain a benefit or avoid loss would have occurredMust show chance to be real and not speculative. Must demonstrate that outcome depended on someone or something other than plaintiffShow that lost chance had practical valueRemotenessThe Hadley Principle: Damages must 1) arise naturally from the breach ‘Arise Naturally’: the kind of predictable consequences that would normally arise from such a contract.2) be in the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of contract.‘Reasonably Foreseeable’: based on what parties knew, and what they ought to have known. (Party sophistication will be factored in.)The burden is on the defendant to establish that a damage was too remote.Special circumstances: where unusual damages would result from breach:The onus is on the relying party to communicate those issues.The other party must accept the special risks.Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)Facts: Baxendale transports a broken mill-shaft for Hadley. The delivery was delayed and thus the plaintiff brought action for the profits lost due to the mill standing idle.Decision: Trial jury awarded plaintiff money for lost profits. On appeal, court decides in favour of defendant- no lost profits compensated: ‘too remote’.Rationale by Baron Alderson: Finds the damages awarded unreasonable because it did not take into account the terms understanding of the contract by the parties. He thought the deliverer did not know that such consequences would result from a breach (or delay) of the contract. Notable mentions:Ratio of case (test for what is too remote)1. You can recover damages naturally arising (what ought to know)2. If they are special circumstances, they have to be clearly communicated to the defendant (that was known)Hadley v. Baxendale had two lasting effects:It is wise not to go too far in enforcing promises worthy of legal sanction. Emphasizing business context.Deeming a breach compensatable should pivot on the test of foreseeability by the parties at the time of contractForseeability is vague and subject to discretionMindful of risk environment in which the contract is madeHow the parties understand the risks to which are being shared and transferred is importantHorne v. The Midland Railway Company (1873)Facts: Plaintiff missed the delivery of a product due to a rail delay. Decision: Trial judge didn’t consider the losses of the plaintiff as a responsibility of the defendant regardless of a notice given of the importance of the delivery. Appeal dismissed.Reasoning: Refers to Hadley and also holds that the notice did not constitute a contract in which both parties understood the consequences to a breach.Court stated that special circumstances have to be explicitly be put into the contract and the notice in this case did not constitute a contractVictoria Laundy Ltd. v. Newman Industries Ltd. [1949]Facts: The defendants were an engineering company supplying a boiler to a laundry. Boiler delivered months late. Plaintiff takes action for loss of profits. Gets awarded nominal damages.Decision: Appeal upheld. Damages indeterminate, but they will include profits lost by the delay.Reasoning by Asquith L.J.: Defendant knew why the plaintiff wanted the boiler and that they wanted it immediately. Defendant could have forseen the results of a breach and are thus liable to some of the profits lost by the plaintiff due to the delay (expectancy damages).Key difference with Hadley v. Baxendale = specific knowledge and nature of contract: expert engineers v. general transportation company, whole boiler v. transport of one part (shaft). Defendants with specialized knowledge liable under “in contemplation” rule.Munroe Equipment v. Canadian Forest Products Ltd. (1961 Man CA)Facts: Plaintiff rents second-hand tractor to defendant. Tractor fails to perform in tough, demanding conditions. Plaintiff attempts to recover his rent payment, and does get $2k awarded to him. Defendant launches a counterclaim for loss due to breakdown of machine.Decision: Counterclaim dismissed. Plaintiff’s award reduced to 1,800Reasoning: Defendant cannot succeed in the counterclaim because the plaintiff was unaware of the work that the tractor would be required to do as the contract was informal.Court does see it as reasonable for anybody to forsee that the tractor could have been responsible for the entirety of the forest work that the defendant planned for it.Scyrup v. Economy Tractor Parts (Man. CA 1963)Facts: Scyrup loses a construction contract cause the defendant’s tractor was faulty. Awarded costs + loss of profits. Defendant appeals to this court.Decision: Appeal denied. Reasoning by Freedman JA: Draws parallels to Victoria Laundry. States that reasonable foreseeability test passed because defendant knew the equipment was needed in good condition. Plaintiff made clear that the equipment was vital to his goals.Dissent by Miller CJM: Draws parallels to Munroe case. Defendant simply did not have enough information to establish liability for the damages that resulted as a consequence of his faulty product. Would not allow the damages to include loss of profits.The Heron II: Koufus v. C. Czarnikow, Ltd. (H.L., 1969)Facts: Heron II owner takes to court charterers of the vessel for damages incurred by breach of contract (by means of a delayed shipment of sugar to Basrah). The sugar was thus sold at a lower price than expected, yielding the owner a smaller profit margin.Decision: Trial judge says ship-owner would not have known that such a loss could have occurred from a delay/breach. CA cites Victoria Laundry in saying its foreseeable thus recoverable. Appeal to the HL. Appeal dismissed. Ship-owner gets his damages.Argument by charters: we owe damage and interest for delay, but not the difference that the price fluctuation cause on the whole cargo.Reasoning by Reid: Price fluctuations known to commodity dealers. So both the ship-owner and charterers should have known of the possibility given a breach.Two-step qualification from Victoria Laundry case:1. Reasonably foreseeable? Yes2. Liable to result? YesThe charterers changed the route and thus changed the risk evaluation and is thus a major breach of contract in maritime lawJudgement depended on the fact that there was a deviation from the contractThe loss upon such a breach was foreseeableTransfield Shipping Inc. V. Mercator (The Achilleas) [HL, 2009]Facts: Charterer returns ship to owner late. Fluctuating shipping rates in this delay force him to reduce the rates for a redrawn contract for the next charterer. He takes the original charterer to court to try recover the difference of the price, contrary to standard shipping practice which only provides payment for the delayed days.Decision: Arbitrators and lower courts rule with owner. HL rules in favour of the charterers.Reasoning: The judges rule thus because they do not see a settlement contrary to standard shipping practice as something that the contracting parties would have agreed upon.Liability can only extend to the voluntary assumption of risk and within the industry [context important] this has clearly already been laid outMeasure foreseeability at the date of the contract, after which the market fluctuations were fairly unusual. How could that have been predicted?Intangible injuries and punitive damagesquestions about awarding damages for mental distress over and above restitutionary interest or other standard procedurecomes up frequently in wrongful dismissal casesemotional attachment to jobconsiderable amount of self-worththree different employment contract categories:fixed termcontracts under collective agreementsemployment w/o termTypes of damages:Aggravated damages: for losses you have suffered, but not economic losses.Cover things like hurt feelings and loss of enjoymentPunitive damages: unconnected to plaintiff’s loss. Awarded by court to punish the defendant.Rationale of punitive awards: retribution, deterrence, and denunciationAddis v. Gramophone Company Limited (HL, 1909)Facts: Addis wrongfully dismissed. Brings action for breach of contract.Decision: Lower court awards plaintiff exemplary damages. Appeal to HL reduces it back to compensatory damages.Reasoning: An action for breach of contract is different from an action in tort. In contract damages can only be awarded in a specified manner and not as punitive.Ruled out compensation for mental distress or punitive damagesJarvis v. Swans Tours Ltd. (QB CA, 1973)Facts: Jarvis has a disappointing Swiss holiday. Brings action against tour company for damages.Decision: Lower court awards Jarvis half his costs. His appeal for more is upheld.Reasoning: Decide that damages can be awarded in contract cases on the basis of mental distress (aggravated damages). Award double the plaintiff’s costs.Notable mentions:Court speaks of a significant social evolution since Addis, and now contracts not only about economic loss.Difficulty of measuring aggravated damages can sometimes leads into punitive sphereRule: damages for mental distress are recoverable if contract’s purpose is to provide a specifically non-financial benefitVorvis v. Insurance Corp of BC (SCC, 1989)Significance: reinforces the precedent that punitive or aggravated damages will rarely be awarded for wrongful dismissalTrial judge decided that given his wrongful dismissal Vorvis is entitled to the severance pay in leui of a reasonable period of notice (compensatory damages)But Vorvis appeals and claims for aggravated damages for his own stress and goes on to ask to punitive damages against ICBC for their treatment of himSCC said you can get aggravated and punitive damages in some cases, but not hereVorvis rule: an ‘actionable wrong’ [i.e. tort] warrants punitive damagesWallace v. United Grain Growers (SCC, 1997)Breach of employment contract caseSCC still said you don’t get aggravated or punitive damages unless you have an actionable wrongDid something a little different, implied a term into all employment contracts; duty of good faith in terminating an employment contractEmployer in ending the contract must be candid, honest, reasonable, and forthright in the manner of dismissalThe precedent from the case resulted in what was called Wallace damagesFidler v. Sun Life (SCC, 2006)Significance: McLachlin lays out the circumstances in which damages for mental distress can and should be awarded in a case of a breach of contract.Two things need to be shown1) an object of the contract was to secure a psychological benefit (Peace of mind contract deserve damages for mental distress)2) degree of breach was sufficient to warrant damages for mental sufferingDON’T NEED AN INDEPENDANTLY ACTIONABLE WRONG FOR aggravated and/or punitive damagesCourt cites Hadley and Baxendale, when discussing damages for mental distress; were these damages reasonable foreseeable when the contract was entered intoWhiten v. Pilot Insurance (SCC, 2002)Facts: Whiten family home burned down. Claim of fire insurance denied and deliberately extended to force the family to accept a poor settlement. At trial, jury awarded plaintiff damages + 1million in punitive damages. Defendant appeals for more reasonable verdict.Decision: CA reduced the punitive sum to 100k. SCC allows the appeal and restores the sum to the original 1 million of the trial jury.Reasoning by Binnie J: Punitive damages awarded only when indecent behaviour merits it [it’s the exception, not the rule]: the allegation of arson was malicious in this manner.Focus on determining the number not the plaintiff’s loss but the defendants misconduct – breach of duty to act in good faithRational purpose test to punitive damages: deterrence from similar conductDissent by LeBel: The judgment moves this case firmly out of compensation and into the realm of punishment.Notable mentions:Problems with punitive damages: place a party in a better position should the contract have been carried out, not the stated objective of contract lawWindfall to the plaintiffNo mechanical or formulaic approach, only need some sense of proportionalityKeys v. Honda (SCC, 2008)Facts: Plaintiff worked for Honda for 14years. Fell seriously ill. Insurer terminated his payments on learning that plaintiff could return to work with accommodation. Keys returned to work, but often absent. Honda had specific accommodation for disability, but Honda concerned about doctor’s notice. Honda asked Keys to meet with new doctor. Keys refused and was fired. Sued Honda for breach of employment contract.Decision: Lower court deems dismissal unfair and awards plaintiff 15 months of severance pay with 500k in punitive damages (Wallace damages). CA increases it to 24month severance but reduced the punitive damages. SCC refused to uphold aggravating or punitive damages without evidence of bad faith or improper conduct by employer, but agrees with severance settlement.Reasoning: Fiddler is the law, Wallace has been overridden. No indication that they breached their implied duties. Aggravated damages not evident.MitigationPlaintiff is required to act in a reasonable manner to mitigate losses (i.e. search for work following wrongful dismissal) to not overburden the contract breacherPivots upon the ability of the innocent party to enter the market and seek a similar end as the original contractDuty to mitigate lessened in circumstances where the innocent party has the right to insist that the contract be performedPayzu Limited v. Saunders (CA, 1919)Facts: Defendants adds conditions to an existing contract under the false belief that the plaintiff is in financial trouble. The plaintiff unreasonably chooses to resist new conditions to pay by cash only, and brings an action against the defendant for breach of contract.Decision: Lower court reluctantly rules with the plaintiff. CA dismisses the appeal and upholds the same judgement.Reasoning:Breach of contract: defendant wasn’t providing the silk on the terms given in the original contract (not allowing credit and discount)Court didn’t award plaintiff what they wanted because they didn’t mitigate their lossesThey were in a position to pay cash but they refused to do soThe court says that while the breach is evident a reasonable person would have mitigated their own lossesWhite & Carter (Councils), Ltd. v. McGregor (HL, 1962)Facts: Defendant repudiated K made by his sales manager to advertise on the plaintiff’s trash bins before any aspect of the deal had been done. Plaintiff doesn’t sue for damages, but for the first payment according to K.Decision: Previous judgements dismissed the case. HL upholds for plaintiff.Dissent: Dangers arise from giving an unrestricted right to the innocent party to carry out a repudiated contract. Awarding contract price rather than damages is absurd.Notable mentions:The majority decision has been severely criticized as being an inaccurate statement of the law because plaintiff did nothing to mitigate losses by looking for other customersControversial precedent: If you break K, the innocent party has a choice: accept the repudiation and sue for damages OR refuse the repudiation and carry out the contractFinelli v. Dee (Ont CA, 1968)Facts: Plaintiff sues defendant for contract price of a repaving job that the defendant clearly repudiated. Construction work done without approval of defendant and whilst on holiday.Decision: Regardless of whether it was a repudiation or a rescission, carrying out the contract was by no means warranted and thus the suit is dismissed.Judgement by Laskin: No consent to come onto property and do the work. Distinguishes the case from the White case, which is criticized.Just as two can agree to make a contract, two can agree to unmake a contractAnticipatory breach of contract: a breach of K that occurs before the contract is fully carried out (sometimes called a breach of a executory contract). Executory meaning that it hasn’t yet been carried out, it comes before the agreed upon action in the K.Specific performance Two equitable remedies: specific performance, injunction, but strong preference for damagesSpecific performance = order by court to perform contractInjunction = “negative” order by court not to do something When will the court award not just the payment of damages, but order the contract breaker to perform his side of the agreement?Traditionally, common law courts rarely order performance. Had jurisdiction only over property.Chancery courts (courts of equity) had jurisdiction over the person and thus had the ability to force someone to actually do somethingCould lock you up for contempt of court if you disobey the order to performThese courts of conscience developed their own rules and principles to when a remedy was and wasn’t available. Many of them still relevant today.Generally not awarded where it infringes on the rights of a third partyPrinciples that govern when specific performance (exceptional remedy) will be awarded:1. When damages will be inadequate. Must be something unique as substitute performance is not availableToo difficult to predict what those damages will be2. He who seeks equity must do equity (the person who comes to equity must come with clean hands)The plaintiff must be innocent of any wrongdoing3. Must be pursued promptly. Refusal likely when request excessively delayed.4. Will not grant performance when they will be require extensive supervisionThus will rarely grant performance for personal services or construction5. If it will be awarded to one side, it will be mandated upon the otherPrinciple of mutuality6. If you are seeking specific performance, you cannot mitigate your lossesGeneral rule: specific performance is always available for sale of land. Derived from English law.Because real property is always uniqueCanadian courts have deviated from that viewUnless the real-estate has some unique value it is not going to get an action of specific performance --- Semelhago v. Paramedvai (SCC, 1996)Tanenbaum v. WJ Bell Paper Co (Ont HC, 1956)Facts: Defendant neglected the contract to built a road and subsequent piping between two parcels of the plaintiff’s property. Not suing for damages, but for performance.Decision: Action upheld. Defendant ordered to perform contract.Reasoning:Part of the selling price of the land was the agreement to do this work, makes the court sympathetic to ordering it to be carried out.Too difficult to calculate cost of losses of breach.Unusual because it was a building contractCo-operative Insurance Society v. Argyll (HL, 1998)Facts: Defendant pre-emptively closes the supermarket chain in a shopping complex. Plaintiff, owner of said complex, sues for performance of lease contract.Decision: Deems damages a better way to settle this than specific performance which would merely prolong this legal battle, while damages can end litigation.Notable mentions:Contrast to Tanenbaum because it would require too much supervisionWarner Bros v. Nelson (KB, 1937)Facts: Defendant, actress, withdrew from her contract with plaintiff. It had positive covenants requiring her to renew the contract at the behest of the studio, and a negative covenant preventing her from working with others while contracted. Suing for injunction of her new work in the UK, and damages.Decision: grants the injunction, no damages.Reasoning:Court can enforce the negative covenants through an injunction (equitable measure)In equity because it stops a defendant from doing a specific act Damages too difficult to calculate to be relevantPlace time limits on the injunction because they are concerned about enforcing specific performance as courts don’t order performance on contracts of personal servicesTimeWroth v. Tyler (UK, 1974)Facts: defendant fails to sell the house he contracted to sell to the plaintiff’s cause estranged wife gets odd legal right to hold the house under the Matrimonial Homes Act. Plaintiff sues for performance and damages (which are substantial since the price of the property has risen dramatically)Decision: Court awards only damages to the plaintiffReasoning: Damages should be awarded on the difference between the contract price and the price at the time of this decree and not at the time of the delivery of contract. Only this method can place the plaintiff in a position similar to that which would have occurred should the contract have been carried out.Lord Cairn’s Act: if an equity court can’t award specific performance it can award damages in lieuAsamera Oil Corp v. Sea Oil and General Corp (SCC, 1979)Court said that they knew they couldn’t get specific performance and at that point should have entered the market to mitigate losses.Thus the date upon which damages should be determined is not the date of judgment, but the date that it became obvious that specific performance would not be attainedRestitutionA realm of private law unto its own: addresses the mischief where a defendant has been enriched by a benefit that would be unreasonably or unlawfully keptApplicable in circumstances where it would be unreasonable that the benefit would be gained by a transgressing partyImplicit within contracts of banking (Ex: Bank can take back funds mistakenly deposited in one’s bank account)Pertinence of fiduciary relationships:Ex: Contract of agency requires fiduciary duties, and thus restitutionary interest can be claimed on a breachContractual remedies: damages, specific performance, and the injunctionLaw of restitution is the contrast of the law of compensation. In restitution the defendant must give up his gains to the plaintiff.Supreme Court of Canada has enthusiastically embraced, and vigorously reaffirmed, the existence of restitution as an independent source of civil obligation, resting on the principle of avoidance of unjust enrichment.Attorney General v. Blake (UK HL, 2000)Facts: Spy case. British double-agent escapes to Russia from where he writes a book published in England. Can the crown take his profits?Decision: Restitutionary interest can be taken by AG from publisherReasoning by Birkenhead:Tries to say that he is awarding restitutionary damages. Calls it an account of profits.Restitution only justified in the case law in extraordinary circumstancesThe confidentiality agreement undertaken by intelligence officers is described as a contract creating fiduciary obligation that has been violatedDissent: worries of consequences of applying this precedent to the commercial sphereThe kinds of promises legally enforcedBargain theory: offer, acceptance, considerationMust balance between enforcing promises (important for private ordering, economy, etc) and imposing unfair surprise that something said now imposes liabilityBargain theory = people assume a legal contractual obligation when enter into bargain i.e. offer, acceptance and consideration (i.e. commercial paradigm at core of contract law)Bargain: classic structure required for the courts to view the promise as enforceableOffer constituted by a set of necessary terms and conditionsAcceptance completes the KMethod usually involves some sort of paymentWhen offer and acceptance is made, we have a binding contract (time of K)Offer and acceptanceDenton v. Great Northern Railway Company (QB, 1856)Facts: Plaintiff follows issued schedule. Goes to station to get ticket only to find out the train was cancelled. Was a contract breached?Decision: In favour of plaintiffReasoning:Judges take the view that a contract was breached. Meaning the schedule was the offer, and showing up constituted acceptance. There was a completed K. No train was a breach of the conditions of said K.Fraud also a consideration in establishing liabilityNotable mentions:Alternative formulation of K: offer at counter, acceptance is issuing the ticketProblem with plaintiff’s formulation: Sold out train constitutes a breach.Johnston Bros v. Rogers (1899)Decision: Telegraph deemed a quotation of prices and not an offer to sell flour at that price.Reasoning by Falconbridge J.:Said the letter implied that the defendants were not firm on their pricesWhat plaintiff thinks is his acceptance, is actually an offer to make a K and the defendant replies with a counteroffer (which implicitly rejects the previous offer)Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store (Minn SC, 1957)Facts: Plaintiff told that the offers he saw in the paper were only open to women. Sues for breach of contractDecision: The judge found that a contract had in fact been made by the advertisements and the ‘house rules’ imposed were arbitrary modifications that constituted a breach.Argues that this was a unilateral contract (offers to the public at large)Note: An ‘invitation for an offer’ is different from an offer – relevant to advertisementsPharmaceutical Society v. Boots (QB, 1953)Facts: Prosecution for violation of statute that required that sales of certain items can only be done under the observation of a pharmacist. Case needed to determine where the contract between the customer and the drug store was established. Pharmacy would be in violation of the law if the offer is putting the drugs on the shelf, and the contract is made when the customer’s accepts by taking it off the shelf.Decision: Court takes alternative formulation of contract: The drug on the shelf is merely an invitation. The contract is formed at the counter under pharmacist supervision.Offer is putting the meds in front of the cash register, and acceptance is undertaken with the pharmacist at the cashier.Problem with plaintiff’s formulation of K is that if customer takes a drug of the shelf, he can’t put it back because he’s already accepted. Manchester Diocessan Council for Education v. Comercial and General Investments LTD (1969)Principle to be drawn: offers are conditioned by reasonable time limits on acceptance, if overshot it can permit a withdrawal of the offer or construe a rejection of the offerIf the offer doesn’t stipulate a time for acceptance, the courts will infer a reasonable timeLarkin v. Gardiner (1895)Facts: An action calling for specific performance of a sale of land.Decision: Judge affirms that an offer can be rescinded before the acceptance has clearly been articulated because no binding contract was entered into.Dickinson v. Dodds (1876)Facts: Defendant made a limited offer in writing to sell property. Dickinson, on hearing, that Dodds was about to sell to another, tried to bind him with an acceptance that the defendant did not receive notice of until after the sale had been made to another third-party.Decision: No contract made, thus no breach.Reasoning:While the plaintiff purported to accept within the time granted by the offerer, the court says that a separate options contract is needed to make a time frame bindingAffirms that the offerer has right to withdraw up to point of contract, which needs to be reasonably enforced upon the knowledge of both parties. No contract was made cause Dodd did not know of acceptance till he made another K.Notable mentions:This case suggests an exception to the rule that for revocation to be effected it must be communicated to you. Eliason v. Henshaw (US SC, 1819)Principle: Acceptance has to be on the terms of the offer. If different the acceptance is not binding, it is comparable to a counteroffer.The party making the offer can usually control the method and terms of acceptanceOnce you have a completed contract parties have no right unilaterally to insert terms.Butler Machin Tool Co v. Ex-Cell-O Corporation (England, 1979)Facts: Defendant, seller, makes offer for machine as per certain conditions, including a price variation clause. Buyer on delivery refuses to pay substantial price increase, as he claims the contract was made on terms of previous offer. Seller sues and wins award. Buyer appeals.Decision: Appeal upheld for buyer.Reasoning:Contract is clear. But on whose terms? ‘Battle of forms’Due to the fact, that the buyer proposed new terms, it constitutes a counter-offer that kills that original offer that had the price-variation clauseNotable mentions:Common law solves the battle of the forms problems by an analysis of offer and acceptance analogy.Uniform Commercial Code (American Law Institute, 1978): Additional terms in an acceptance are to be considered as additional to the contract not a counter-offer.M.J.B Enterprises v. Defence Construction [1951] (SCC, 1999)Facts: Defendant was accepting tenders to bid on a contract. Plaintiff put forward a proposal that fit within the guidelines, while a chosen plan did not. Plaintiff sues.Ruling by Iacobucci: An invitation to tender gives rise to K obligations to select among the compliant bidsThe Request for proposal (RFP) constitutes an offer to bid, and by submitting a tender within the guidelines indicated the bidder accepts the offerDefendant needed to respect that contract while determining which offer to accept for the subsequent contractExpectancy damages awarded to plaintiff. Performance not granted.Notable mentions:Privilege clause does not allow the govt agency discretion to chose noncompliant bidAlso allows them not to be obliged to the lowest bidIn most jurisdictions statutes regulate the tendering process to ensure efficiency and fairness in allocating government contracts, but NOT IN CANADA.Formalization and certaintyIn dealing with problems of certaintyThe courts try not imply terms into a contractWill sometimes look at external evidence to deal with ambiguitiesCourts are reluctant to say there was no contract if parties conduct indicates a K was in force.Generally the closer a contract can be matched to a commercial idea of offer and acceptance, the more likely the courts are to enforce it.May and Butcher, Limited v. The King (1929)Facts: Defendant backs out of K as terms become unacceptable. Plaintiff sues for breach. Decision: Courts do not recognize it as a contract, as it lacks too many essential componentsReasoning:Agreement did not mention necessary terms of a contract of sale (no price or dates)Court said contract made on such terms cannot be enforceableW.N. Hilas and Co. v. Arcos (HL, 1932)Lower courts couldn’t see how to enforce a contract with vague termsHL says that making it through a full year, meant that some method of dealing with uncertainties had been settled upon. Thus the contract is enforceableRecognizes that commercial K’s can lack the definite aspects necessary for the full application of contract law, but nonetheless need recognition and protection under the law.Foley v. Classique Coaches, Limited (1934)Facts: Defendant declares a contract of no force after the plaintiff increases petrol prices, which were not clearly stipulated in the agreement. Plaintiff sues for the validity of the contract.Decision: Judgement in favour of plaintiff, K ruled to be binding regardless of omissions.Reasoning:Obligation to buy petrol was pivotal to K, withdrawing on such grounds is a breachFor three years a contract had been operable on the basis of reasonable market prices for gasolineCourt decides in fact the uncertainties still mean that there is a contract hereArbitration clause in contract should have been consulted if there was a disagreementEmpress Towers v. Bank of Nova Scotia (BC CA, 1990)Facts: Just prior to the expiration of tenancy agreement, landlord responds to repeated offers from Bank. But new terms are unreasonable and do not allow room for negotiation.Decision: Renewal clause and other tenets of previous tenancy agreement not respected by landlord, Empress Towers. Court finds the unreasonable counter-offer shows bad faith on the part of Empress Unusual to imply good faith in the negotiation of the contractCorrespondenceOffer that is made, is in effect until revoked, or reasonable time to accept has passedAcceptance, like a revocation, needs to be communicatedProblems occur when you start using time-lag methods of communication like mailParty making the offer controls a lot, including the method of acceptancePost-box rule: in contracts negotiated by mail, putting the acceptance into the mailbox formalizes the contractRisks are quite different with instantaneous modes of communicationThus court have not applied the post-box rule to modern communicationToday, acceptance only effective when receivedHenthom v. Fraser (1892)Facts: An offer is rescinded by mail, but only after the acceptance is placed in the mail. Plaintiff wants performance, defendant denies contractPrinciple: Offer is continuous until the person to whom it was made knows it is withdrawn. The acceptance being placed in the mail established a contract. (Post-box rule)Byrne & Co. v. Leon Van Tienhoven & Co (1880)Facts: Defendant makes offer to American company via telegram. Offer accepted by post. Defendant withdraws after, but before receiving acceptance; sued in turn.Decision and principle: Telegrams and correspondence can constitute the makings of a contract that will be enforced by the court of law.Contract formed by acceptance being mailed according to the post-box rulePurpose of the rule is to impose risk on the offerer because they control the conditions of the contractThus the revocation has to be received by the offeree before they mail acceptanceEnglish common law does not require a meeting of the minds to establish a contractHolwell Securities ltd. v. Hughes (1974)Facts: To accept an offer to a contract, the plaintiff sends in a mail that never got delivered. Court called in to adjudicate whether a contract was formed.Decision and Principle: Rule that the contract was in fact not formed. Reversing the rule from Henthorn which said that an acceptance forms a contract once posted, the court says that the acceptance’s delivery is needed for a contract to form.Terms of the contract implied that the vendor needed to receive the acceptance to constitute a contractCourt notes some absurdities can arise from following the post-box ruleEastern Power v. Azienda (Ont CA, 1999)Facts: Defendant an Italian company, back out of a contract agreed upon through fax communication. Court needs to rule whether they have jurisdiction over the case.Decision and principle: general rule of contract law is that contract formed where the offeror received notification of acceptance. This was in Italy, thus court has no jurisdiction.Conflict of laws issueRuling indicative of how the courts have looked at modern means of communication.Notable mentions:Electronic Commerce Act: A contract made by electronic means is bindingConsiderationReferred to: as the price paid for a promiseTo have an enforceable contract both parties need to have given consideration for the promise that they wish to have in forcePromisor (party making the promise) and promisee (person agreeing to the promise)Requirement of consideration has a number of roles to play:Provides evidence that there was some kind of arrangement madeShows that the parties intend the promise to be legally enforcedIdea of nominal consideration: turns a gift into a contractBenefit to one party, and detriment to anotherWhat constitutes good and sufficient consideration for a contract?White v Bluett (1853)Facts: Plaintiff the brother of defendant. Defendant agreed with father if stopped complaining the promissory note here being enforced would be discharged. Court has to determine whether the promise was enforceable.Decision: No consideration here apparent. Verdict for the plaintiff forcing the defendant to pay.Reasoning:Court does not recognize the son’s promise to stop complaining as consideration (abstaining from what you have no right to do is not consideration)Tendency not to find consideration within family mattersExample of where there was no evidentiary basis for absolving the promissory noteHamer v. Sidway (1891)Facts: Determining the validity of a promise made by an uncle to a nephew that he would pay 5k if he didn’t smoke and drink till the age of 21.Decision: Court determines it is enforceable because there is consideration from both partiesReasoning:There is evidence that the promise was made- money was set asideSeems like it was intended to be a binding agreementServes as a contrast to White v. BluettConsideration doesn’t always have to be a benefit to the other party, but can be a detriment incurredThomas v. Thomas (1842)Facts: Widow (plaintiff) given ability to live in husband’s property by executors (defendant). Plaintiff evicted after more generous executor dies.Decision and principle: Court rules she can stay in the house because there was sufficient consideration (agreement to maintain house and pay rent)Tobias v. Dick and T. Eaton Co. (1937)Facts: Tobias contracted with Dick to sell his machines. Takes him to court for a breach. And T Eaton for the tort of interference with contract.Decision: This is a one-sided agreement that is not a contract. Tobias has promise of exclusive agency of Dick’s goods, but doesn’t provide any obligation upon him to do anything. No consideration by Tobias to create an enforceable contract.Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon (1917)Facts: Defendant a clothing designer, plaintiff is distributor. Plaintiff suing on breach of contract as defendant sold without his knowledge and didn’t divide profits.Decision: Rules that the obligations of the plaintiff were implied in the contract and thus it has consideration and can be enforced in favour of the plaintiff.Notes:Argument that contract does not include any consideration from Wood rejected by court b/c the evidence suggests consideration is being undertaken.Judgement moves away from formalism. He was implicitly obligated to serve the duties within the contract.Distinguished from Tobias: In Wood there was a business structure that connected the plaintiff duties and the defendant profits.Harris v. Watson (1791)Facts: Plaintiff a sailor on the defendant’s boat. Whilst in danger, defendant promises a raise for hard work. Plaintiff taking action to get that raise.Decision: Draws on principle; when the boats sinks, wages are lost with it. So on policy considerations dismisses the case.Notes:In the seafaring scenario, it would constitute a contract under duress.Question of consideration on contract increase compensation upon a pre-existing duty?Must weigh the changing circumstances that cannot be foreseenMust be consideration for contractual variationStilk v. Myrick (1809)Fact: Another case of a seaman’s wage. Promise of raise after other sailors desert.Decision: For defendant.Reasoning: No consideration given for new agreement. Job entailed duties that had to be fulfilled regardless of whether other had deserted or not.Principle: Traditional formulation that if they is a revision to the contract there needs to be consideration on both parties.Gilbert Steel v. University Construction (Ont CA, 1976)Facts: Plaintiff alleges that a verbal agreement to change the price of steel to a construction contract was binding and must be enforced upon the defendantDecision: Contract lacks consideration Notes:Arguments:Contract was rescinded and replaced: mutual revocation has long been accepted as an enforceable contract. Court says there was no evidence of rescission, rather simply a variation in price.There was consideration given: Gilbert Steel extends the defendants credit line (court says this is a natural consequence of commercial arrangements when one party agrees to pay more) and gives a good price on the next project (no indication of a commitment to such a deal). Court finds these promises are too vague to constitute consideration.Doctrine of consideration usually requires that consideration moves from the promisee (or a detriment to themselves) through some form of agreement. Practical benefits of renegotiation not consideration.Consideration must stem from the promisee to the promisorIssue of estoppel, means the ability to stop someone from doing something. Applies to commercial situations where one party leads another to believe that something will take place, and that second party relies on that belief they are entitled to hold the first party to what they had implied. They are estopped.In this case, defendant promised they would pay more making the plaintiff stay on the project. They argue that defendant should be estopped from now denying their obligation to pay. Problem was that Gilbert was using the argument not to stop defendant from doing something, but to force them to do somethingLaw recognizes if you make an assertion to a party, you cannot later go back and deny that agreement. Argument: university made a promise, and now they should be stopped from going back on that. Court: using estoppel as a sword, rather than a shield as it is meant to be used.Bargain fails for want of consideration, contract not enforceable.Williams v. Roffey (1991)Facts: Plaintiff a contractor working on a construction project for defendant. Realizes the price he charged is too low and work is unproductive. Defendant agrees to pay 10k more to get work done. But later says the agreement is not enforceable as their was no consideration.Decision: Consideration found, contract enforceable in favour of plaintiff.Reasoning: Each party gained a benefit from the agreement.Doctrine of Promissory estoppelModifications of contracts in progress can be enforceable if they meet qualifications:Expands consideration to include practical benefits.Principle can only apply when you have an existing enforceable contract and performance is still in progress (but reasons why one party will not be able to perform)No economic duressThis is an English precedent that has yet to find application from the SCCGilbert Steel from highly persuasive Ontario CA ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download