Contract Law

Uncertainty:

•    When we say a contract is uncertain, we mean that there is not enough specificity for a judge to nail down anything to enforce.
•    True that judges do have rules that can be applied to find certainty.
•    Judges make difficult decisions.  Though judges will try hard to find a determination to a contract.
•    There is a point at which the shell of an agreement is so lacking in detail that it is impossible to enforce.

The Agreement to Agree
•    Nothing more than an agreement today that tomorrow we shall agree on something.
•    Judge cannot say what the parties would have agreed had they agreed.
•    It only has the appearance of a contract.
•    Agreements to Agree Simpliciter are bad – naked agreement.  Unenforceable.
•    Not bad if the parties have agreed on a formula whereby the judge can render certain that which is otherwise uncertain, or a mechanism (such as a third party, typically an arbitrator).
•    Arbitration is consensual dispute resolution.
o    Parties have agreed to channel dispute out of court system and into arbitration.
o    2 broad types of Arbitration:  Labour arbitration – usually statutorily provided and imposed by labour regimes.  Doesn’t have one of the characteristics of arbitration – privacy?
•    Non-labour goes under generic term – Commercial arbitration
o    Must remember that an arbitrator is as much bound by the prevailing law as a judge is.
•    How is an arbitrator’s decision enforced?
o    Exactly the same way as a judge’s.
o    “Judgment” is a document which calculates payment, interest, etc.
o    Plaintiff’s lawyer takes it to the Sheriff.  Can seize the property of the defendant to raise the funds for judgments.
o    Arbitration board enforced in same way.  Gives an “award” which looks like a judgement of the court – can again be registered with the Sheriff.
•    Usually refer to the mechanism as an arbitrator.
o    Technically, the arbitrator resolves a legal issue
o    If it is not a legal issue, technically not arbitration
o    Referees and umpires, for example, are different names for someone doing the same thing in a non-legal setting.
•    Agreement to Agree + Mechanism, renders certain what would otherwise be unenforceable.

Foley v. Classique Coaches
o    P 495.  Just because the parties think they have a contract doesn’t mean that they do.  The court decides whether it was and what they intended.
o    “And they worked under it for 3 years…”  Neither here nor there as to whether they had a contract.
o    This case shows that judges will work hard to find an agreement – do not like to disappoint the reasonable expectations of parites.  Do not like to see someone have it “both ways” – have their cake and eat it too.  In this case, would not want the company to get the land and not have to buy their petrol from Foley.

P 497
o    Helpful statement:
o    Notes 7 – diff between relational contract and discreet contract
o    Discrete:  One time deal.  A buy and sell contract, for instance.
o    Relational contract – can last for years, or is a contract in a series of contracts that combine to last for year (ex: a retailer who does all their buying from one wholesaler).
o    Where there is a relational contract courts can more readily find certainty than in a discrete contract
o    discrete |disˈkrēt| |dəˌskrit| |dɪˌskriːt| adjective:  individually separate and distinct

Uncertainty
o    Agreement to agree = bad
o    A2A + Mechanism = good

Silence
o    Better than an Agreement to Agree
o    Courts sometimes will cure gaps like this.
o    1)  If it falls under Sale of Goods Act, for instance.
o    Price, and time of delivery
o    If one has a contract for the sale of goods (e.g.:  contractual rights – the right to buy a car do not apply), and terms are left out (price/date of delivery), the sale of goods act in each province says that the judge can fill in that gap.
o    2)  If the silence is a relatively minor one, judges can fill in the gap, on the theory that they are doing what the parties intended when they formed the contract.
o    3)  If the parties have had a past practice, the court may fill in what might otherwise be a fatal gap, on the basis of past practice.
o    4)  Trade Practice:  If both parties are members of a well-recognized trade, then their (gapped) contract may be filled in based on trade practice.
o    Even though these two parties might never have dealt with one another before, they are assumed to have intended to follow normal trade practice.
o    Mainly remember the first three, in regards to when Silence is not fatal.

“In Good Faith” (IGF)
o    An agreement to negotiate i.g.f.
o    Is this enforceable, or too uncertain?
o    Addressed in Courtney and Fairbairn Ltd V. Tolaini Brothers (Hotels) Ltd.

Courtney and Fairbairn Ltd v. Tolaini Brothers (Hotels) Ltd.
o    Court ruled that despite the “formula”, the word “negotiate” was fatal, rendering the agreement an agreement to agree.
o    If it must be negotiated, then it is not objectively ascertainable.
o    Lord Denning’s judgement (most famous judge of 20th-century) says that it is an agreement to negotiate, which is likened to an agreement to agree.  Not good for practical reasons – how to know what would have been the outcome of the negotiations.
o    Applies general principle that when there is a fundamental matter left undecided and to be the subject of negotiation, there is no contract.
o    Lord Diplock (assenting): points out the area of “dictum” – not part of ratio decidendi.  Says that we can ignore the part of Lord Wright’s part of Hillas v. Argos as it is obiter (dicta).

Walford v. Miles
o    Now dealing with House of Lords – 5 judges present
o    Sueing for the difference between what they would have paid, and what it was actually worth:  £3-million - £2-million.
o    May be something that looks like a contract, but says within it (subject to contract) that it is not a contract. Ie: ‘We do not intend this to be a legal contract / change our legal relationship.’
o    Look at a telephone exchange March 17 – that they allege itself was a contract to continue negotiating until the sale was complete – IGF.
o    It is this contract (the lock-out agreement) that they allege was violated.  Cannot sue on the principle contract, because it is “subject to contract”.
o    Ap’s allege that it was a term of the lock-out necessary to give business efficacy, that as long as the would-be vendors continued to try to sell the business, they would continue to negotiate IGF with the would-be purchasers.
o    Sue on the basis of a contract which they allege was incidental to the contract of purchase/sale.  Was a telephone conversation, so not very exact.
o    Say there was an implied term that they would continue to negotiate IGF
o    IMPLIED terms.
•    Aside:  Contracts have some implied terms.  Usually irrelevant to a dispute, but occasionally instrumental.
•    Some parts of agreements are usually left to implication.
•    There comes a point where the things not made explicit are so obvious that the parties do not bother to spell them out.
•    Ex:  Would “St. John’s” in a contract mean “St. John’s, NL”, or “St. John’s, Caracas”?  It is likely very obvious based on the context.
•    Even in a very elaborate contract, some terms are implicit.  In the case of a non-elaborate  contract, there will be many implicit terms.  Have to establish the implied terms – parties must agree to it.
•    When trying to establish the implied terms (remember the taxi example) must convince that they were clear implications – ex:  The taxi taking the shortest route, and not going to the airport via Woodstock.
•    2 tests:  1)  Business efficacy test:  [Also noted in Dawson – p 448.] In order to give business efficacy to an agreement (make practical sense of), it is necessary to infer some term in the contract, then the court can say that it was intended.  If without the term it does not make business sense, then it can be said that the parties intended it.  The court verbalizes that which they say the parties intended.    2)  Officious  Bystander [noted in Empress towers p. 502]  If a bystander spoke to the parties just after a contract was agreed upon, and asked what an implied term meant, then they would be likely to receive a certain answer (ex: “of course we meant St. John’s, NL).
•    To qualify under these tests, a term cannot be something that one of the parties would obviously have rejected (e.g.: would make business sense, but would have been rejected by one party), then cannot be imposed.
o    The lawyer here argues the business efficacy test – that IGF was implied by both parties.
o    Argue that so long as the would-be vendors (respondents) continued to desire to sell the business and the premises, the respondents would continue to negotiate in good faith with the appellants (would-be purchasers)
•    Aside: “Good faith” – arises in contract law in two contexts:  “good faith” in performance of an already-existing contract, and “good faith” in forming a new contract.
•    In performance – the law does infer that the parties have promised one another to perform their duties in good faith.  Rarely will parties say that they will do something IGF, but it is here a standard implied term (after a contract is formed).
•    In negotiation – in general, courts have said that there is not duty to negotiate in good faith.  One reason is that in contract-law, the law does not enforce promises (only promises inside contracts).  There is only one source – the will of the parties.  How then can one say that there is a legally enforceable duty to negotiate IGF?  So whence would this duty spring?  This is an insurmountable hurdle.

For next day:  Empress, walford and miles, and may finish this first page of syllabus
Come with briefs, as usual.

London Drugs
•    The bailor sueing the bailee in negligence (tort)
•    The most obvious way to invoke the contractual defence is to show that one is a party to the contract.
o    Must determine whether the employees were parties to the contract.
o    On what legal theory can we make the employees party to the contract?
•    3 standard routes:
•    assignment – wouldn’t work
•    agency – the most obvious route.  A claim that when the bailee entered into the contract with the bailor, it did so as an agent for the employees.
o    True that the employees would have to show that they gave consideration, but there would be nothing (theoretically) to stop the consideration of the bailee being shared by the employees – promising safety of the chattel.
o    If this was argued (we don’t know) the answer was likely that yes, it is poss. for the employer to contract on the behalf of the employees, (as well as itself), and for the consideration for both to be the same, but all depends on intention.
o    In this case, the court “must have” concluded (or perhaps was already clear to the lawyers) that it did not happen this way.
•    trust – would work, supposeing there was some factual basis to make the argument – again, intention.  Courts are reluctant to conclude that there is an agency or trust rel. without pos. evidence of intention.
o    This is because these arguments would get around many legal arguments.  It would, if acccepted easily, be a cure-all.
o    Could transform failed gifts (without delivery) into binding agreements by saying that the donor was agreeing to hold the gift in trust for the giftee.
o    Similarly, in the law of contrats could save many third parties from plight of third parties simply by making them parties – by saying that someone else entered into the contracts on their behalf.

•    3rd parties are non-parties.  They are usually helpless and hopeless.
o    In this case, the SCC changes their status – only in the employment context. (very important).
o    Ioccobucci puts much emphasis on the identity of interest between the employer and employee.
o    “relaxes” the rule.  Does not overthrow.
o    In order to relax the doctrine in this context, gives 2 criteria:
•    1)  Parties must have intended (either explicitly or implicitly) that the employees shold benefit from the limitation of liability clause.
•    Ioccobucci finds an implied intention.  This is not that they would be parties, but that despite not being parties, they may benefit from the clause – identity of interest
•    2)  Must be in the performace of their duties, and in performance of the duties contemplated by the contract.

Insurance issue:
•    Courts are aware that the provision
•    Charges the warehouse enterprise with a maximum liability of $40.
o    The warehouse is being charged a much lower premium because of this limitation of liability clause.
o    Places the onus on the bailor to obtain insurance coverage.
o    This provision is really about who has the burden of insuring.
o    It makes sense that the owner of the goods (who knows what’s in the crate, etc.) has the responsibility for insuring it.
•    Carriers have similar contracts.

What, in effet, is the bailor here trying to do?
•    Having benefitted from a low storage-rate, based on accepting the risk on itself, it is now trying to shift the responsibility back onto the bailee.
•    Trying to have it both ways.
•    The employees will not have insurance.
o    Many tort cases are in actuality about insurance.

Is this a good decision or a bad decision?
(in a tort-sense)
•    The real purpose of tort-law is to visit punishment on the tort-feasor, so as to force [them] to ‘clean up [their] act’
•    Hank and Dennis are off the hook…
•    Is this a flaw in the case?

Laing Property Corp. v. All Seasons Display Inc.
•    Not bailor-bailee (and bailee’s employees), but tenant-landlord (and landlord’s emloyees)
•    Contract in question is a lease.
•    Page 400 – Insurance clause.
o    The landlord wants to ensure that the tenant has insurance.  This ensures that if the tenant is a future tort-feasor, the landlord and other tenants can collect damages against them
o    Also in the landlord’s name so that benefits can be collected.
o    Also absolves the landlord from responsibility for any loss, damage, or expenses.
o    Waivor of subrogation.
•    Even if the landlord’s carelessness causes the mall to burn down, and the tenant’s insurance covers the tenant, and under common law the insurance company could sue the landlord for recovery, the tenant has waived this right.
•    The landlord’s employees’ negligence did cause the mall to burn down.
•    The tenant’s insurance company “sues everyone in sight”
o    Sues the landlord (fails), and also its employees.
•    In Greewood Shopping Plaze, the SCC denied the employees any rights under the mall’s contract with the tenant…
•    Here, the B.C. C.A. follows London Drugs as far as it can, and distinguishes Greenwood Shopping Plaza…
•    Greenwood:  Even though at the heard of both cases is a lease (and not a contract of bailment) and does not invoke employees, the B.C. C.A. says that in the lease here, it is a lease, but it has other services mentioned – says that the promotion services meant that the promotion service in question, which needed to be performed by employees (similar to services in London Drugs), meant that the employees were contemplated by the lease.
o    Then apply the two factors in London Drugs to relax the doctrin of privity vis-à-vis employees
o    Was there intention to include the employees?  Did they intend the waivor of subrogation to extend to the employees?
o    It is not express, so must look for implied intention
o    Page 404 – give the intellible basis for finding implied intention – para 99 & 100.
•    1)  Is there identity of interest between the employee and employer as to the performance of the employers’ contractual obligations?  Ie:  the services must be performed by the employee.
•    2)  Did the tenant, in entering into this contract, know that the services could only be performed by human employees?
o    Repeated at para. 115.
•    In all of these cases, the relaxation of the privity rule is for a defensive purpose.
o    It is to act as a shield for a third party.
o    In no case has the courts relaxed the privity rule to allow a third party to sue on a contract.
o    This would require contract.

Law Reform Act  http://www.gnb.ca/0062/pdf-acts/l-01-2.pdf
•    In a contract between A & B that promises a benefit to C, this says that C can sue on the A-B contract to which it is not a party.
•    A & B can prevent this if they say so in the contract.
o    4(1) – a person who is not a party to a contract, but who is intended to receive some peformance under it may enforce that performance by claim for damages or otherwise.
o    Here, can likely be express or implied.  If implied, would use the rule from Laing (or London Drugs).
o    4(3) – may change their contract, but if it causes any loss to C, and C has incurred expense or undertaken an obligation in the expectation of performance, C may recover loss from any party to the contract who ought to have known that the expenses would be or had been incurred or that the obligation had been or would be undertaken.
•    NB has briefly but substantially abolished the privity problem.
•    England’s approach, a few years later (page 411) also greatly abridged the privity problem, but took the opposite approach – did it in great detail instead of sweepingly.
o    This is only part of the English statute.
•    Not sure what effet this prosiion will ultimately have.  Relatively unlitigated as of yet – do not yet know its implications.

Review – Tuesday, 12:30 in 2A
Monday – also review.  Structured.