Contract Law

Our first line of defence in this course (on reserve):
•    Waddems: Contract Law in Canada
•    Cheshire and Fifoot – designed for students and practitioners.  Authoritative.
•    Attyah – Introduction to the Law of Contract.  This one is designed for students, but is at times advanced (bold, unorthodox).
o    1x/week, should be reading material on reserve.  Pick one of the cases we are doing in class, then look it up (index) in one of these books.

Electronic Communication/Transactions
http://www.gnb.ca/0062/acts/acts/e-05-5.htm
•    In most provinces now, there is some for of an Electronic Transactions Act.
•    Uniform Law Conference of Canada – contract law in Canada is a matter of property and civil rights – provincial responsibility
o    Can be different in each province – this can be odious not only for citizens, but for corporations.
o    Indirectly in Canada, we have tried to do what the Constitution doesn’t (though does mention) – the Uniform Law Conference of Canada (estb’d ~1914).  Takes the basic statutes from provinces (usually based on English statute), and tries to eliminate their differences as much as possible.  For areas of law that need new statutes, the ULCC drafts a new statute, which provinces can voluntarily adopt (either it, or a close approximation).
o    The NB Electronic Transactions Act is the result of one of these conferences.
•    NB’s ver is a mild version.
•    It is wholly permissive and facilitating.
•    Doesn’t require the use of electronic signature or anything of the like.
•    Facilitates:  As long as one intends something to be their signature, then it counts as a signature.
•    Has a provision for an electronic equivalent of registered mail.

Time of sending and receipt
16(1)Unless the sender and the addressee agree otherwise, electronic information is sent
(a)when it enters an information system outside the control of the sender, or
(b)if the sender and the addressee are in the same information system, when the sender takes the appropriate steps to make the information accessible to the addressee.
16(2)Electronic information is presumed to be received
(a)when it enters an information system designated or used by the addressee for the purpose of receiving information of the type sent and it is capable of being retrieved and processed by the addressee, or
(b)if the information enters some other information system and it is capable of being retrieved and processed by the addressee, when the addressee becomes aware that the information is in that other system.
16(3)Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as determining the place from which electronic information is sent nor the place at which it is received.

•    Sending and receiving is covered, and important.
•    This section covers time.
•    Note the use of the word “presumption” in 16(2).
o    Presumptions are rebuttable.
•    16(3) negates any link between the “when” and ther
•     “where”.  This would otherwise be very pertinent.
o    The significance of this can likely be ascertained from looking at the Eastern Power case.
•    Ordinary rules of contract law mean that wherever one opens one’s email could be where the contract is made (ex:  Sitting on a stopover in Hong Kong, whence neither party is from [is that a redundent phrase?])
•    To the extent that courts have given hints, they will use the ordinary rules of offer and acceptance.

“Firm” Offers
•    An offer which is expressed by the offerer to be open for a specified time.
o    All offers are open for some period of time – they have an expiry date.
•    A “firm” offer, the expiry date has been expressed.
•    “I offer to sell you my car for $1000.  This offer is open until 9am on Friday morning to accept.”
•    Basically saying, ‘I will not revoke it until 9am on Friday.’
•    Conveys to offeree that the offer does not have to be accepted right away – can take until the firmly specified time.
•    But (disillusioning moment) firm offers are not worth the paper that they may or may not be written on.
•    The offerer is not bound by this condition.
o    “Firm” offers are not firm at all.  End up being a trap for the offeree.
o    Even though the offer has been phrased that way, can be revoked at any time.
•    The key here is the word “revoke”.  It does not mean simply, “I’ve changed my mind.”
o    It involves communicating the ‘change of mind’ – revocation, like acceptance, is not revocation until communicated.
o    To prevent the other party from Accepting and forming a contract, must communicate the revocation before they communicate their Acceptance.
•    Why is this promise to keep the offer open not binding?
o    Lack of consideration – there is nothing being offered to keep the deal open.  [Bilateral v. unilateral?  P448 – “an offer in the unilateral sense can be revoked up to the last moment before complete performance”]
o    “The law does bind us to our word.”
o    In fact, we are not bound by any promise we make unless that is inside a contract.
•    There can be a contract to keep an offer open.
o    There must be consideration.  In other words, one can buy the right to, for instance, buy land.
o    This “buying” the right to accept or reject is called an Option.
o    An Option is a Firm Offer.  It is irrevocable.
o    The Offeree has paid the Offerer to keep the offer open for a specified period.

Unilateral v. Bilateral
Bilateral
•    Generality of offers is what the law calls bilateral offers or bilateral contracts.
•    A bilateral offer is one which, if accepted, gives rise to a bilateral contract.
•    So phrased so as to be open to verbal or promissory acceptance.
•    The offer must be phrased to be open to Acceptance (verbally)
Unilateral
•    “I offer you £100 to walk to York.”
o    This type of offer is so phrased that it is not susceptible to verbal acceptance – only by doing something.
o    It calls on the offeree to do something to accept – must be completed to form an acceptance.
o    In order to get $100 to find a lost cat, the cat must be found to constitute acceptance.
•    So phrased that it can be accepted only by doing some action.
•    Only when the offeree has completed the “thing” does the Acceptance occur.
•    This something, when done, constitutes Acceptance.
•    Often referred to as “if” Offers.
•    Either literally or analytically, they begin with an “if”.

What if this idea is filtered through the idea of revocability?
•    Unless accepted, an offer is just a promise.
•    “£100 to walk to York”
o    If this is Accepted by walking to York, then unless one has reached York (even 99% the way there), the offer can be revoked.
o    The law does not enforce promises.

Dawson v. Helicopter Exploration
•    Justice Rand is considered the greatest Jurist in the first half of the 20th-century.
o    “The Rand Formula” –
o    Rand worked to settle the boundary between Israel and its neighbours.
o    Son of a railway worker from Moncton.  Grew up poor.  Went to harvard, became lawyer, AG of NB.
o    Intercolonial in Moncton – bankrupted railways – became CN and moved to Montreal.
o    Rand became head of CN and followed to Montreal
o    Turned down SCC once, but did accept eventually.
o    Militant agnostic.
o    Served on SCC for about 15 years – short at the time. (44-’59)
o    Went off in 1959 to found law school at UWO.
o    None in ON are very old (law schools)
o    Taught at UNB.  Long-time selector of Beaverbrook scholarships.  Taught at law school here.
o    Writing style indicative of Harvard education.

Dawson
•    Cannot sue unless there is a contract
•    Company held that there was no acceptance.
•    Dawson did not go with them to find the claim.
•    Rand says that it is beyond doubt that it is not unilateral agreement – it is a bilateral offer, subject to promissory agreement.
o    This makes it a contract – enforceable.
o    It was the defendant’s fault that the “if” was not completed.
o    The “Acceptance” required complimentary action on the part of both parties.
o    [I see the reasoning here this way (it escapes Bell, he says).  If I say, “Bob, I’ll give you $10,000 to walk to Moncton by 5:00 tomorrow evening with me on your back.  If at 4:45 the next day, Bob is about to cross into Moncton, after having walked the entire way. I jump off and break Bob’s legs with a baseball bat.  Bob is put into an ambulance and brought to a Moncton Hospital..  In the course of the Criminal proceedings against me, could Bob not also sue me for the $10,000 “owed” to him under our alleged contract?]

Acceptance

Contrast between the ordinary rule of acceptance (that acceptance is acceptance when the acceptance is communicated to the offerer – deals with time, not place), and the Postal Rule of Acceptance (Acceptance occurs when the acceptance is mailed).

When does the Postal Rule of Acceptance apply?  Obviously enough, when the post is involved.  Just because the post has been used, however, does not mean that it does apply.  The theoretical rule is that it applies when the offerer intended that the offeree’s acceptance would have the benefit of this rule of acceptance.

However, when will the court deem that the offerer has deemed this acceptable?  If the offerer made the offer by post (this makes it implicit).  Not all responses by post attach this rule.  Secondly, the courts have decided that the postal rule of acceptance will attach to an acceptance if use of the post in that context would not be unusual.

30 years ago, much contracting was done by post.  Somewhat less true today.

If the offeree was not intended to have the benefit of the postal rule of acceptance, then they simply do not have it.

Schiller v. Fisher. P 423.
•    Negotiating a land purchase.
•    Going back and forth, so the role of offerer and offeree changes.
•    Kingsmont makes final offer, by letter.
•    This offer expired on Sept 1.
•    P 424 – actual agreement with expiration date.  This is an express expiration (as opposed to implicit).
•    Covering letter said, “return one copy of the Agreement to us as soon as possible.”
•    In this case, what does the word “accepted” mean in “This offer is to be accepted on or before September 1, 1976”
•    Normally, the fact of the assent would needs be communicated to the offerer by this date.
•    Nu-towne signed on Sept 1, mailed Sept 3, rec’d Sept 8.
•    Under any of the normal rules of Acceptance, it was too late…
•    The counter-argument was that the words in the cover letter expressed the offerer’s view that an acceptable acceptance was different in this case.
•    The argument went that the covering letter, stating “as soon as possible” altered the “normal” rules of acceptance.
•    This also does not fall under the Postal Rule of Acceptance – the covering letter overrules both.
•    The trial judgement was in favour of Nu-towne.  Court of Appeal was in favour of Kingsmont (offerer).  SCC found in favour of Nu-towne.
•    Basically, the would-be purchasers, Kingsmont, obviously wants out of the contract.  We don’t know why – perhaps a better offer, who knows¿  They are using this legal pretext to try to get out.  A legal nitpick.

The rules of acceptance are about the “when” of acceptance.
Under the general rule, it is not acceptance until it is communicated.  Under the postal rule, it is when it is posted, whether the Acceptance actually arrives or not.

The When of acceptance also determines the “Where of Acceptance”.
When people form contracts inter-jurisdictionally (as in Canada, where we have 12+ jurisdictions – Contract law is the responsibility of provinces), it follows that sometimes the “Where” is very important – potential law suits depend on the where.
Not just relevant between different countries – also relevant, say, between NB and NS.
This is relevant because if one of the parties decides to sue the other, the plaintiff will typically decide to sue in his or her own home jurisdiction.
Courts have to decide whether they have jurisdiction over disputes.  In the Rules of Court of any jurisdiction, there are rules to guide judges in determining whether to accept jurisdiction over cases.  One of the rules is whether the contract was formed in the jurisdcition.
P427 – Ontario rules.

Cannot ascertain where a contract is made without first determining when it was made.  This often hinges on the rules of acceptance.

P427 - EASTERN POWER LTD. v. AZIENDA COMMUNALE ENERGIA AND AMBIENTE

A cooperation agreement assented to between parties.
Is a cooperation agreement an enforceable agreement at all?  This will be examined next class.
EP looking for loss of profits on a contract that was never carried out.
If Azienda had actually appeared in the courts in Ontario, it might have changed the case.  Did eventually, and argued to have the case set aside on the grounds that the courts there did not have jurisdiction over them in Italy.
The determining factor was whether the contract was formed in Italy or Canada (Ontario).
The medium is important here – acceptance was sent my facsimile.  Does the postal rule apply?
Is fax more analogous to personal communication or postal communication?
The court judged that it was more analogous to personal communication…
This hinges again on the presumtion that the offerer has not specified what constitutes Acceptance.  The ordinary rule of acceptance applied here.  This was in part formed on the basis that a fax is instant.
This case is about the choice of forum – which court has jurisdiction.
In Canadian jurisdiction, for instance, in a case between NB and AB, a court in NB may use NB procedural law, but AB substantive law.  Forum clauses can effect this.
There is a question of whose substantive law will be used.

There is a subtext here.  Considering forum non conveniens grounds here.  Takes into account whether a judge in Ontario would have to use Italian law, and how difficult that would be.

Must take into account wehther it is a convenient or not convenient venue for the trial.  The parties did not appear to be accustomed to International Trading.  They did not have a choice of law clause, nor a choice of forum clause.

Sometimes courts will overrule these clauses if it is believed that one party is using its dominance to subvert the other.  This could have come up in the Rudder case.

Choice of forum versus Choice of Law.  Distinguish.

Postal rule does not apply to couriers…  The Ordinary rule of acceptance applied to phone, fax, emails, and couriers.  It is a tightly confined rule.

Rudder v. Microsoft Corp.

Plaintiffs saying that one particular clause (choice of forum clause) should not be binding.

Want to sue MS in Ontario, because it is cheaper in Ontario (and perhaps more sympathetic).  Ontario, since this time, has likely tightened up their class-action laws.

Ask the judge to strike out this part of the Agreement.  Argue that they did not give assent to this clause though they clicked ‘I Accept’.

Judge disagrees.  The pl says that one should liken everything not currently on the screen to fine print.  Courts approach fine print in a rather hostile way.  Judge says that it literally is not fine print (all the same text).

This is a more straightforward argument – ‘I didn’t assent.  I didn’t assent because I didn’t know about it.  I didn’t know about it because it was “fine print”.’

If the parties have chosen their forum, then it doesn’t matter about rules of acceptance regarding jurisdictions.  The contract tells you what will be the forum.

For next day, look at Electronic Transactions Act of NB.  We will examine s16, but read it all.
Will look as far as Dawson.  This examines one issue in Carlill.  Read notes on 445-446.    We might also look at the uncertainty jurisprudence.  Read opening notes of next section of syllabus.

Foakes v. Beer (missed last class – interviews)
•    Why doesn’t the ruling in this case come under pre-existing duty?
•    Why do we need a separate rationale?
o    We do not need the rule from Foakes v. Beer – equally analysable under pre-existing duty
o    Separate island of jurisprudence all to itself, very similar to pre-existing duty rule
o    Could be under Stilk v. Meryk
•    Is is a subset of a preexisting duty, but we treat it separately for historical reasons.

•    Why doesn’t the hypothetical situation whereby one promises to write off a $100 debt in exhange for $50 fall under the rule that we saw earlier (stilk v. merit)
o    S & M was a legal dispute
o    The answer is that the s & m type scenario was about a compromising legal dispute
o    Whereas, in our hypothetical situation, there is no legal dispute.  One is not claiming that one does not owe the money.  One is simply admitting that one cannot pay it.

Given the similarity between the Foakes v. Beer and Stott v. Merit Investment Corporation, would the way around exhibited in williams v. roffey brothers be gotten around the same was as in Stott v. Merit?
o    Williams v. Roffy brother scenario takes some of the sting out
o    Why is it not equally applicable to the Foakes v. beer scenario?
•    It would be.
•    The English courts have addressed this.  They have said that one cannot use a Williams approach to defang the approach of Foakes.
•    This is because Foakes is a decision of the house of lords, and it would take a decision of that same house to overturn it.
•    Further, the argument goes that if Williams got one out from under Foakes, there would be nothing left to Foakes.
•    Whereas, in Williams, all three judges said they were not overturning Stilk v. Merit.
•    Why won’t a Williams argument apply?  (Consideration can be found in practical benefit…)
o    The answer is because the courts have said that it won’t.
•    Williams v. Roffy Brothers says that a prac. benefit can be consideration
o    applies only if the parties already have a contract
o    though limited in this way, nevertheless, is a precedent of great interest.
o    The natural question is, “what can Canada do?  Will they follow?”
•    If Gilbert Steel were decided today, would it go another way?
•    Under Quicklaw, search “Roffey” and see what the cndn courts do when they cite Williams v. Roffey Brothers.
•    ***Look and see whether it is being followed in Canada.  This may be important for midterm.
•    Will it stand as a great precedent of our time, or will it be forgotten?
•    P. 309, para 1. – “The case not being one of a composition with a common debtor, agreed to, inter se, by several creditors. “
o    If the first creditor who gets judgment against a credit gets 100%, then the fifth creditor (for instance) may get nothing as there is nothing left.
o    Sometimes, creditors will agree amongst themselves that none of them will actually execute a judgment against the debtor.  They will take the entire assets of the debtor and divide them up.
o    Earl of Selborne says that this arrangment is binding, but cites it in a way that it would seem to be an exception to the Foakes v. Beer way, but does not mean it in this way.  In fact means that there is consideration in this arrangment.
•    This agreement between creditors is called a composition.
o    Note on page 310 para 3 – there is a point that the “chequeness” is not consideration unless it is a bargained-for chequeness.
•    Nothing is consideration unless it is treated as consideration – unless it is bargained for.  Read this over to clarify.
o    P 312 – contracts with a 3rd party.

Criteria to select promises worthy of legal enforcement
•    Promises given in return for something which the law is prepared to regard as consideration.
o    This is narrower than what ordinary people might view as consideration.
•    Promises under seal (will look at later).

•    Does our legal tradition enforce promises merely because the promisee has relied on them?
o    This is against theory, but may exist practically.
•    We now come to a series of cases where this appears to be the scenario.
o    What is going on will look like promise enforcement, but the question is whether it is really promise enforcement, or protecting resonable reliance.
•    Is it harm prevention as opposed to promise enforcement?
•    With promise enforcement, all the attention is on the promisor.
•    With harm prevention, all the attention is on the promisee.
o    The case that discovered the possibility that there might be something that strongly resembled considerationless promise enforcement was Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House ltd.
•    Lord Denning, prior to becoming a Lord.  He is a Justice here – trial judge.
•    One of the few trial cases in our text.
•    Friendly parties – just want an answer, which they will be willing to accept.
•    In this case, one of the two parties (plaintiff) have become insolvent, and is in the hands of a receiver.  The receiver has a fiduciary duty to try to take in as much money as legally possible.
•    99-year leases are quite common in England.
•    The landlord sues for 2 things (which may be the same thing, 2 ways)
o    Full rent prospectively
o    Full rent retrospectively.
•    First thing we look for is consideration (to enforce the landlord’s promise to let them pay ½ rent).
o    The promissee did rely on this promise
o    Consideration:  The tenant did pay the ½ rent, but that is not consideration – that falls under pre-existing duty.
o    There is no seal on the changed contract.  No change vis-à-vis the change.  No consideration vis-à-vis the change.
o    Denning J. does something revolutionary while saying that he is not doing anything revolutionary.
•    Claims to be following jurisprudence.
•    He makes up something and attributes it to the widom of the past.
•    Estoppel – this is the leading case of estoppel.
•    What Denning J. is faced with is a situation where the promisor made a promise to the promisee, the promisee relied reasonably on the promise, and now the promisor wants to break the promise.
•    The landlord gave the tenant a representation of the future – we call this a promise
•    This case is about whether to enforce a promise.
•    Because it is a promise.  Does not fall under trad. Jurisprudence of estoppel.
•    Allows us to make some enforcement.
•    (para 1 on page 316) – “With regard to estoppel, the representation made in relation to reducing the rent was not a representation of an existing fact.  It was a representation, in effect, as to the future, namely, that payment of the rest would not be enforced at a full rate but only at a reduced rate.  Such a representation would not give rise to an estoppel, because, as was said… a representation as to the future must be embodied as a contract or be nothing.”
•    (Para 2) “There have been a series of decisions over the last fifty years which, although they are said to be cases of estoppel, are not really such.  They are cases in which a promise was made which was intended to create legal relations and which to the knowledge of the person making the promise, was going to be acted on by the person to whom it was made, and which was in fact so acted on.  In such cases the courts have said that the promise must be honoured…  As I have said they are not cases of estoppel in the strict sense.  They are really promises – promises inteded to be binding, intended to be acted on, and in fact acted on.”
•    “In each case the court held the promise to be binding on the party making it, even though under the old common law it might be difficult to find any consideration for it.”
•    Continues – is this promise enforcement, or is it something that looks like promise enforcement, but is not?
•    Is there a meaningful difference between ordering a defendant to keep their promise, and ordering a defendant to act consistently with their promise.
•    Para 3 & 5 address the question (which we would never have to address with consideration)
•    How Binding?
•    The tenant had the audacity to argue that the promise was for the entire 99-year lease.
o    Lord Denning says no.  Will enforce the promise to some extent, but not that extent.
o    Says that the promisor can take back their promise to this promise

Reset.
•    It may be that the promisor can take back their promise
•    Estoppel-based promise-enforcement differs.
•    Promisory-estopple, or equitable-estoppel.
o    A different category of estoppel.

Next class:  Down to D & C Builders v. Rees

On TWEN is last year’s midterm.  Address questions 2 & 3 by way of sample.

Tilden
•    The P here could have read the contract, but did not
•    How does he win?  He does not win on the theory that he went to trial on, but another.
o    He wins on the court’s reasoning that (¶s 13 & 14) an essential part of the test is whether the other party entered into the contract on the belief that Mr. Clendenning had agreed to the contract.
o    If it obvious to one party that though the other is signing they are not assenting to the contract (because there are parts that they don’t know about), the party cannot invoke the rule from L’estrange.
o    Tilden cannot rely on the parts of the contract which it has no reason to believe Clendenning assented to.
o    Waddens alludes to the doctrine of mistake, though this is not a mistake
•    The judges decide to give judgment that defeats the business party, but tries to assure the business world that the decision is not a significant change.
•    ¶17 – which sections are Clendenning subject to?  Not subject to the clauses which the judges believe the consumer would find surprising.
o    Tilden relying on clauses under which it keeps the $2 deductible, but is not obliged to pay out a claim.
•    Bell calls this a clever decision that is very much still a part of the law.

Hunter Engineering v. Syncrude Canada pp. 871-888.
•    In the wake of Photo Production, there was no extra weight given to “fundamental breach” of a contract, as all breaches were treated equally.
•    If on a true construction, a clause covered an incident, then it covered the incident, period.
o    Court in PP, however, noted that they had a clear conscience because what might be the least fair cases had already been covered by legislation.
o    Only commercial cases at common law remained.
•    SCC in Hunter Engineering (1989) takes a considered look at this idea.
•    The decision in Hunter is a 2-2 decision.  There is no majority / minority decision on this point.
o    On the issue of the place of fundamental breach in the modern law, there is a split.
o    everyone typically identifies Dickson J’s decision as the majority, but this is not so.
•    The clauses here are not totally unreasonable.  The purchaser, however, wishes to evade them
•    argument that the breach here is of a fundamental character, and so the limitation of liability clauses do not apply…
•    2 judges here like Photo Production, and would incorporate the decision into Canadian law.
o    ¶17 – Dickson J. says that fundamental breach should be an issue of contract contraction, and that the court should not disturb the bargain that the parties have struck.  He and La Forest go with the true construction model.
•    True construction – simply means that if the clause in question, given various tests of interpretation, still covers (on a fair reading) what happened, then it does cover what happened, and the parties will be left with the contract that they made.
•    This is a business-business case, but Dickson and La Forest do not make their decision turn on this.  They do not distinguish.
•    The effect of this would be to abolish the doctrine of fundamental breach in Canada.
•    Get hints of something else:  ¶17 (last sentence) – ‘the courts should not disturb the bargain that the parties have struck, and I am inclined to replace the doctrine of fundamental breach with a rule that holds the parties to the terms of their agreement, provided the agreement is not unconscionable.’
o    ¶28 – unconscionability again.  “only where the contract is unconscionable, as might arise from situations of unequal bargaining power between the parties, should the courts interfere with agreements the parties have freely concluded.”
o    doctrine of unconscionability – judges can ignore things they don’t like.  Trad. gets a very narrow construction.  Is confined to the narrowest circumstances.  usually, only legit. terrain is seen as inequality bargaining power.
•    if the bargaining power was grossly lopsided, the contract might be struck down by the courts.
•    Wilson J. and L’Heureux-Dubé J.
o    presents more than Dickson, and in a less than coherent order.
o    Says that she agrees with Dickson that fundamental breach as invented by Denning in the Car Sales (?) case and promoted by him in subsequent cases, that it has its problems.
•    agrees that not all the problem clauses in contracts are exemption clauses, but that the doctrine of fundamental breach deals only with limit. of liability or exemption clauses.
•    agrees that not all exemption clauses are unfair, but that the doc. of fund. breach means that if there is a fundamental breach, the exemption clause disappears altogether.
•    So agrees that there are problems.  Goes too far one way, not far enough in another.  But does not think we should go so far as to abolish it.
o    ¶42-43 – goes to trouble of pointing out that while the HoL in Photo Production could reach its decision with a clear conscience because the consumer cases were protected by legis., points out that there is no such legislation in Canada.
•    Wilson qualifies this ¶43 that many of the provs. had already taken care of limitation of liability clauses (contracts fall under prov. jurisdiction)
•    But doesn’t think that this is a completely adequate solution.  Still sees a role for the courts to protect parties who have been victims of some fundamental breaches.
o    ¶43 – ‘in affirming the legitimate role for the courts’; ¶47 “policy matters”; ¶? “residual powers” for courts.
•    saying that courts have a legit. role in invoking its residual power in contracts.  May be cases where freedom of contracts has gone too far, and that there may be a role of the court (even outside the doctrine of unconscionability) to remake a contract.
•    Says that she does not agree with Lord Denning’s approach.  The Doc. of Fund. Breach that she is about to try to save is not as it was articulated by Denning.
o    Denning’s said that if you have a fund. breach (going to the root of the contract; deprives the violated party of the whole benefit of the contract), there is an automatic consequence.  A rule of law kicks in to specify this consequence – that the limitation of liability clause disappears, meaning that the contract breaker can no longer shield themselves behind it from liability.
o    ¶33 – sentence 2 – quite wrong.  “One held that there was a rule of law that a fundamental breach brought a contract to an end…” wrong.  The contract did not come to an end – the limitation of liability clause came to an end.  That is all.
•    Says that her articulation of the doctrine of fundamental breach would be more nuanced:
o    that the courts would still have to classify a breach as fundamental or not, but that it just leads the court to ask a second question:
•    Would allowing the breaching party that has committed the fund. breach, to shield itself, lead to a result that was unfair or unreasonable?
•    Whereas Denning, having once classified a breach as fundamental, would immediately remove the lim. of liability clause, Wilson would say that once this classification is made, the next question is then asked.
•    would not, then, be looking at the moment of formation, but instead the result of the contract – an unfair or unreasonable consequence for a victim of a breach.
o    Says that even if there was a fundamental breach here, there is nothing so unfair as to invoke the doctrine.
•    Makes a reply to Dickson and his flirting with the doctrine of unconscionability:
o    ¶47 “Where there is no inequality of bargaining power, the courts should, as a gen. rule, give effect to the bargain freely negotiated by the parties”
•    ¶48 “To dispense with the doctrine of fundamental breach and rely solely on the principle of unconscionability, as has been suggested by some commentators, would, in my view, require an extension of the principle of unconscionability beyond its traditional bounds of inequality of bargaining power.”
o    The doctrine of unconscionability has trad. not been a result-based analysis, but instead a contract formation-based analysis.
o    questions how the court could say that a validly formed contract was unconscionable…
•    so cannot be a subs. for the doctr. of fund. breach, UNLESS admit to changing the doctr. of unconscionability.
•    Says that even if she could do that, she wouldn’t, because she finds this doctrine even more vague than the doctr. of fundamental breach.

•    ¶52 – Courts over the past 50 years have flirted with the idea that exclusion of liability clauses are worse than limitation of liability clauses.  This is a distinction that is difficult to make.  Limitation of liab. clauses can be so far-reaching as to practically equate them to exclusion of liability clauses.  Wilson J. here points out the same thing.

Conclusion:
The doctrine of fund. breach took hold in Canada, but here we have 2 judges who would abolish it, and 2 who would save it, but prune it.  (5th judge here stayed out of it).
Editors of the case book (note 2, 3, & 6) give us three cases where (note 7 as well?) a good idea can be formed of how lower court judges have handled this 2-2 decision of the SCC.  In effect, the judges seem to be taking what Dickson and Wilson said and synthesized them?  Seized on “unconscionable” in Dickson’s and “unfair and unreasonable” in Wilson’s, and began treating them as the same thing.
Note 2, page 885 – equates the two – says the diff is “unlikely to be large”.
The SCC has touched on fundamental breach in a # of cases since 1989.  It does rather seem that fund. breach is alive and well in Canada – perhaps saved by Wilson J. & L’Heureux-Dubé, but ppl still do use Dickson’s word, “Unconscionability”.
Fundamental Breach:  Dead in England, still kicking in Canada.  Party on, Fundamental Breach.  Party on.

Consumer Product Warranty and Liability Act (NB) http://www.gnb.ca/0062/acts/acts/c%2D18%2D1.htm ss 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 23-26
•    Result of Ralph Nader’s critiques of the auto industry in the U.S. in the 60s making their way to the legislatures by the late 70s.
•    does not apply to services, except if goods are sold at the same time.
•    2(3)This Act applies notwithstanding any agreement, notice, disclaimer, waiver, acknowledgement or other thing to the contrary.
o    Seems to say that the consumer cannot contract themselves out of the Act.
o    Do have the  Sale of Goods Act, but can contract oneself out its benefit (without even realizing it).

Read the rest of the sections of the Act.  New Syllabus on TWEN.  Meeting tomorrow – reading assignment for tomorrow by email.

Exception Clauses p. 838
•    Warranty, in its technical meaning, is a sub-contract
•    It has a technical meaning
o    Close reading; strict construction
•    Wallis v. Pratt – “warranty” did not apply to exclude the implied statutory “condition” of the Sale of Goods Act that products must correspond to their description.
o    ¶5 - exclusion of “any warranty of condition” does not avail a seller if there has been a ‘negligent misstatement’
o    ¶6 – in the absesnce of an explicit mention of negligence, a judge is likely to find that exemption cluases do not exclude liability for negligence.
•    Judges believe that it should be very difficult to exclude oneself from the possibility of negligence, and that it must at the very least be explicit.
•    “The rule in Canada Steamships” – adopted this extreme example of reading down.  If an exemption clause could be given a meaning but the meaning was not broad enough to extend to negligence, then it does not extend to negligence.
•    If the exemption clause could refer to something other than negligence, then it is deemed to refer to that thing.
•    P. 839 – Inconsistency.
o    A number of ways that judges tackel ‘internal inconsistency’
•    To say that the provision that the parties agreed on explicitly takes precedence over some provision that is simply there as part of a form-document.
o    The passage on 839 is accurate, but misleadingly simplistic.

Parker v. Southeast Railway
•    A case that refers to the imp. of railway
•    Bottom Page 849 – caput lupinum – “Having the head of the wolf”.  Anyone might legally ‘kill’ them.
•    Railway companies were often the targets of juries, as insurance companies are today.
•    Railway takes the pos. that the passenger signed away their rights.
o    There was a notice on the wall of the cloak-room
o    There were conditions written on the ticket
•    Page 847 – “see back”; several clauses relating to articles left by passengers – “The company will not be resonsible for any package exceeding the value of £10.”
•    Bag could not be found.  Claimed that his bag was worth £24 10s.
•    Mellish L.J. – “In and ordinary case, where an action is brought on a written agreement which is signed by the defendant, the agreement is proved by proving his signature, and, in the absesnce of fraud, it si wholly immaterial that he has not read the agreement and does not know its content …in the case [where the agreement has been reduced to writing so that the writing is the sole evidence of the agreement without signing it]there must be evidence of the agreement itself to prove that the defendant assented to it.”
•    P said that he knew there was writing on the ticket, but not what the writing was.  Said thought it may have been a receipt ¶3.
o    No question that had he read the writing, he would have been bound.
•    Contract law presumes that people, if given something to read, will read it.
•    Bramwell L.J.
o    For this judge, the question is whether the person who does not read the conditions in a better condition than he who does.
•    Bottom 848 – Mellish’s famous repropositions:
o    ¶3 – 3 propositions.  I am of the opionion there fore that the proper direction to leave to the jury in these cases is:
•    1)  That if the person receiving the ticket did not see or know that there was writing on the ticket, he is not bound by the conditions;
•    2)  that if he knew there was writing, and knew or believed that the writing contained conditions, then he is bound by the conditions;
•    [should this be subject to the condition that the writing be relevant and ‘usual’ to the circumstances?; that anything out of the ordinary would be brought specifically to the attention of the purchaser?]
•    3)  that if he knew there was writing on the ticket, but did not know or believe that the writing contained conditions, nevertheless he would be bound, if the delivering of the ticket to him in such a manner that he could see there was writing upon it, was, in the opinion of the jury, reasonable notice that the writing contained conditions.
•    [Would the purchaser be bound to every single condition on the ticket, or just the not-unusual contractual provisions?  Could they insert provisions to do with seizing first-born children and have done with it?]
•    page 849 – Bramwell L.J.
o    Bramwell is skeptical
o    Proposes that putting it into his hand should be no different than saying “read that” by the porter.  Asks what more the railway company could have done
o    Page 850 – qualifies what he says – says that the market has the answer.  If railway companies (or anyone else) began putting unreasonably terms in their contracts, then the public would hear of it and begin using alternative [forms of transportation, for example].
o    “What if there was ome unreasonable condition… Would the depositor be bound?  I might content myself by asking:  Would be be, if here were told ‘our conditions are on this ticket,’ and he did not read them.  In my judgment, he would not be bound in either case.  I think there is an implied understanding that there is no condition unreasonable to the  knowledge of the party tendering the document and not insisting on its being read – no condition not relevant to the atter in hand.”
•    Important qualification regarding ‘unreasonable conditions’

Note 5 page 851
•    J. Spurling Ltd. v. Bradshaw
o    Post-war case involving 8 casks of orange juice.
o    Most of the OJ disappeared while being stored in a bailee warehouse.
o    Decision of Denning L.
•    “I agree that the more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it.  Some clauses which I have seen would need t be printed in red ink on the face of the docuent with a read hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.”
•    “Next it was said that the landing account and invoice were issued after goods had been received and could not therefre be part of the cotract of bailment:  but the defendant admitted that he had receive many landing accounts before.  True, he had not troubled to read them.  True, he had not troubled to read them.  On receiving this account, he took no objection to it, left the goods there, and went on paying the warehouse rent for months afterwards.  It seems to be that by the course of business and conduct of the parties, these conditions were part of the contrat.  In these circumstances, the plaintiffs were entitled to rely on this exempting condition…”

read p 851-852

Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking Ltd. – page 857
•    sign at entrance:  “All cars parked at ownder’s risk”.
•    Then drive up a ramp and press a button for a ticket.
•    Denning L. finds that the ramp is the offer, and driving up the ramp and pressing the button is the acceptance.
•    Even if the ticker were part of the conditions, how could one be bound by conditions that one could not see until after ‘acceptance’?
•    Same as the conditions posted inside the garage.
•    ¶2 – offer accepted when the P drove up the entrance and had the ticket thrust at him by the weight-sensor.  The contract was the concluded, and could not be altered by any words printed on the ticket.
•    ¶3 - Then gives analogy whereby the ticket machine is a booking clerk ‘in disguise’
o    goes back to 3 questions pose by Mellish L.J. in Parker
o    ¶4 – counsel for the ds admitted that the Ds did not do what was reasonably sufficient to give the P notice of the exempting condition.
o    “I do not pause to enquire whether the exempting condition is void for unreasonableness.”
•    BE CAREFUL.  There is no jurisprudence that allows courts to say that an exempting clause was void for unreasonableness.  Denning L.J. was likely trying to begin this jurisprudence, but it didn’t take.
•    Denning determines that the P was not bound by the exempting condition as there was no evi. that he knew of it.

Page 860 – Signed Contracts
•    “When a documet containing contractual terms is signed, then, in the absense of fraud, or I will add, misrepresentation, the party signing is bound, as it is wholly immaterial whether he has read the codument or not.”
o    Ie:  You signed, you’re bound.
•    Courts often want to save people from their own folly.
o    This causes tension.

For next day:  Tilden, Photo Production.