Contract Law

Promissory Estoppel:

•    There are 57 different types of estoppel under our legal system.
•    This is why it must be qualified as promissory estoppel.
o    Invented by Denning L. in 1940s.
o    Original formulation had in it ambiguitiy almost to the point of contradiction.
•    Para 2 on page 316
o    3 or 4 diff formulations just in that one paragraph.
o    Retreats later from “create” legal relations in regards to a promise
o    “Promise must be honoured” – is this retreated from?
o    Most succinct formulation:  “Promises intended to be binding, intended to be acted on, and in fact acted on.”
•    This is acceptable today…
•    “In each case the court held the promise to be binding on the parky parking it,e ven though under the old common law it might be difficult to find any consideration for it.”
•    The courts do not enforce the promise but do not allow the promisor to act inconsistently with it…?
•    Runs around Foakes v. Beer in this way.  Uses estoppel as a work-around.

Combe v. Combe
•    The text points out the absurdity of the fact of a matrimonial case becoming a contract precedent.
o    This is in fact what our legal tradition began doing in the 19th century.
o    The Victorial era began inventing contract law by abstracting out of all the contracts that had always existed and began to find common elements in them all.
•    Led to basic rules such as offer, acceptance, and consideration.
•    Divorced contract law from its particular situation and created a general-field theory – “The law of contracts”
•    The facts are remniscent of Balfour v. Balfour.
o    Here, the couple, during divorce, came to an agreement between them for him to pay her £100 / year.
o    After 6 ¾ years, she sues him for the arrears (he had paid nothing)
o    She wants to enforce a promise.
o    But our legal system doesn’t enforce promises.  We need consideration – a bargain.
o    What is it suggested that she swapped with him?
•    Forbearance – forebore to take him to Divorce Court.
•    This sounds like consideration.
o    Denning L. has 2 answers:
•    1)  Nothing to suggest that this was intended by either the husband or wife.  It was not a bargained-for forbearance.
•    Similar to Dalhousie v. Boutilier
•    2)  Even if she had promised to forebear, she would never lose the right to apply to the Divorce Court – there was (and still is, in a sense – in the sense that it now applies to either sex) a rule that a wife could not bar herself from getting court-ordered maintenance.
•    Denning L. says that she didn’t make this promise anyway, but even if she did, it would not be binding because it has no value.  She cannot contract herself out of this right.
•    This means that the rule, which appears to be solicitous to wives, can be read in a way to be beneficial to husbands (as in this case).
•    Normally, a bargained-for forbearance is consideration.  This is a special case because of this aforementioned rule.
•    Whenever one has a scenario where the enforceability of a promise is in dispute, then consideration must be considered first.
o    If consideration is found, then there is no need to go forth and talk about estoppel.
o    Estoppel is what makes this case famous.
•    Trial judge, having found that there was no consideration, went on and upheld the husband’s promise.
o    Did so because he believed the case fit neatly under the High Trees principle.
•    A promise relied on, and intended to be relied on, is binding.
o    Denning L. says that though it looks like it fits, he had been too broad with his wording in High Trees.
•    Combe v. Combe introduces a refinement on High Trees.
•    Page 318 – para 3:  “…lest it should be endangered.”   In other words, lest it be overruled by a higher court.
•    It is not a creative doctrine – it is a preventative doctrine.
•    “It only prevents a party from insisting on his strict legal rights when it would be unjust to allow him to do so, having regard to the dealings with have taken place between the parties.”
•    Though he says this, he immediately goes on to say that that is not to say that it is only available to defendants.
•    When one thinks of estoppel, naturally equates it with defendants.
•    Denning L. says that plaintiffs can use it just as readily, but it must always be a defensive doctrine.
•    Gives examples on top of 319.
•    Foakes v. Beer comes into play in these examples.
•    “Example 2 is breath-taking” – Bell
o    “Can even say that example #1 is breath-taking.” – Bell
o    Denning gives account of a gov. dept and the war-service disease.
•    There was a statute that said anyone whose disease was due to war service got a pension
•    Robertson made a claim as such.  Ministry accepted it, and Robertson stopped collecting evidence.
•    Then, the ministry changed its mind and said that they needed more evidence.
•    Robertson sues on his statutory entitlement to a pension.
o    Ministry says that they need evidence
o    Roberson claims they are estopped, because he put reasonable reliance on their word that they needed no more.
o    This is a case where the plaintiff estopps a defendant.
•    Robertson wasn’t suing the ministry saying, “You promised me.”  He sued on his statutory right for pension.
•    Then when they raised the inevitable defence, he put forth that they were estopped.
•    In none of these cases were the plaintiffs suing on the promise.
•    Estoppel is never part of the cause of action, but plays a key role in determining whether someone is going to win or lose.  Is a subsidiary feature of the case.
o    Denning gives a new formulation.  Less succinct than previous formulation.  Enormously wordy.  P 319 end of para 3.
•    Has inserted “conduct”
•    Could be relevant – case where a landlord allows rent to be late for 6 months, then on the 7th uses it ‘as an excuse’ to kick the pl. out.  The pl would argue that the conduct of the landlord had led them to believe it was okay.
•    “only by his word” is not accurate.  Should read, “by reasonable reliance”
•    Still has not given qulification.
o    Para 4
•    Says that if we took seriously the principle form high trees, (reasonable reliance), then why would we need consideration?
•    There is an answer…
•    Denning now accepts that this principle would overturn 9/10 of the doctrine of consideration…
•    “Its ill effecta have been largely mitigated of late, but it still remains a cardinal necessit of the formation of a contract, although not of its modification or discharge.  I fear that it was my failure to make this clear in High Trees which misled [the trial judge] in the present case.”
•    SO, cannot sue based on estoppel, but if have another issue, then can bring estopple into play.
•    Likewise, if one is being sued (and is therefore compelled into court), then can use estoppel
•    Unfortunately for Mrs. Combe, she is relying on estoppel.  This is why her action ends up being dismissed.
•    Aside:  There is no difference between variation and modification.
o    Denning says that one can use estoppel defensively, not offensively. (“to be used as a shield and not as a sword”. – Birkett L.J. page 321.  Famous disctinction created by Birkett here.)
•    WHY DIDN’T COMBE APPLY TO…[this is Bell’s favourite exam question.  Figure out what he said.  Was purposefully elusive.]  Wilbur?
•    High trees made it seem as though reasonable reliance alone would be enough to enforce a promise.
o    This would have revolutionized contracts – would have been just about fatal to doctrine of consideration.
o    To sue to enforce a promise requires consideration.
•    This is why the wife cannot win.
•    Promissory Estoppel goes from 2 factors to 3
•    1)  Promise and intention to be relied on
•    2)  And relied on by the promisee
•    3)  except that, a promisee cannot sue on the promise based on estoppel.  It cannot be the foundation of the case – the cause of action.
•    Each side can use estoppel, but the plaintiff can never sue successfully using estoppel as a cause of action.
o    This is for no good reason other than Denning L. says so
o    Denning L. made his career on making cases stand for things that judges could not foresee them standing for…
o    “Law is an awful lot like fairy tales… We often treat the past with as much profundity as a fairy tale.  …We make the wisdom of the past say something that it didn’t say yesterday.”
o    Everyone is happy to see Foakes v. Beer be defanged, so we all go along with it an pretend it makes sense.

Page 322 – Note 5.
•    Suggestion that estoppel principle might have been a substitute for consideration
Note 6
•    A) a profound question that we must eventually be able to think about…
o    The effect of the sword/shield distinction means that my promise to take less from you than I’m entitled to may be binding on me,
•    Suppose B owes A $100.  If A promises to take only $90, then the estoppel principle says that A can take the $90 (enforecable), but, if instead A owes B $100, and A promises to pay $110, then then law won’t enforce the promise.
•    This is despite that in both examples, B is $10 better off.
•    When estoppel works in high-trees, the land-lord is estopped from going back on his promise
•    When it doesn’t work in combe, the wife cannot enforce the husband’s promise that she will get money
•    6a asks us to thing about whether there is a sensible distinction between a promise to take less, versus a promise to pay more…
•    they both amount to one person being $10 richer than they otherwise would be.
•    This case did make its way to the JCPC – they gavem ultiple factors to come into an estoppel, but amounted to what Denning L. has already said.
o    “resile” – abandon a position or course of action.

D. & C. Builders Ltd. v. Rees.
•    15 years later
•    Denning L. by this time the most famous judge in the common-law world.
•    Had been promoted to house of lords, but found there was less influence here.
o    Arranged for his won demotion to chief justice of court of appeal
o    Assigned all good cases to himself.
o    M.R. – master of the roles.

Read this case for next day.  Read on to the two other decisions on pa 326 to think about where Denning’s decision stands in regards to the two others.
Also, go on to Waltons – a potentiall spectacular case from Aus. – goes back to High tress without Combe v. Combe.

This is the second class.  Last week’s class was replaced by visit to N.B. C.A.

Remedies:  Review from last day
•    Principle remedy for a broken contract is a money-remedy – damages
o    Again, do not confuse damages with damage.  Damage is the injury.  Damages is a technical term for the money remedy awarded by courts.
•    The traditional first principle of damages is that the obj. of the award of damages is to put the plaintiff in the pos. he/she would have been in had the contract been properly performed.  This works on the theory that the pl. can then take this quantum of money to go into the marketplace to buy a replacement for performance.
•    Reliance principle:  To put the pl. back to even.  Calculate how much the pl has relied up on the def’s broken promise… to make the “whole” again.
o    Fuller and Purdue – say that damages could be calculated so as to vindicate what they call the pl’s restitutionary principle.  Often, in pursuance of a contract, a pl. will have conferred a benefit on a def., enriching the def. and impovershing the pl.  Restitution to the pl. in this situation is the unjust enrichment principle, or restitutionary principle.
o    These are not a hierarchy of quantum.

•    In Peevyhouse, both the majority and the minority wish to give the Peevyhouses their expectation, but both camps interpret this expectation differently.

Anglia Television Ltd. v. Reed P. 68
•    Denning L. here brushes aside a traditional problem in contract law.
o    The pl. will not get its expectation here – this is a question of damages.
o    Do not know what the profits of the film would have been.
o    In Fuller and Purdue terms, supposed to put the pl. in the pos. they would have been in had the film been produced, but here, doing so is so speculative that it is in fact impossible.  This is so obvious that it goes largely undiscussed.
o    The courts have a slogan:  The fact that awarding damages may be very difficult does not excuse the court from doing so.
o    Here the pl. is asking for reliance.
•    Problem:  Most of the expenditure for which they seek compensation, was made prior to Reed’s promise.
•    If this is the case, then how can it have been made in reliance to Reed’s promise…?
•    Denning:  “If the pl. claims the wasted expenditure, he is not limited to the expenditure incurred after the contract was concluded.  He can claim also the expenditure incurred before the contract, provided that it was such as would reasonably be in the contemplation of the parties as likely to be wasted if the contract was broken.” ¶4.
o    Denning here sounds like he is citing a know proposition of law.  It is not.  He is making it up.

Bowlay Logging Ltd. v. Domtar Ltd.  p. 72
•    The twist in this case is that the pl. was losing money on the contract, and was in fact better off having it broken off.
•    In F&P language (and this is the first Canadian case that uses F&P), the pl. is suing, not for their expectation (as they expected to lose money), but for their reliance – the money thrown away in pursuit of a broken contract.
•    The judge does not deny that they can sue for either, but says that the court will not put a pl. into a better position than they would have occupied had the contract been fully performed. ¶4.
o    There is a limit to their recovery under the reliance interest.
o    They would have lost money under the contract.
o    Can give them their reliance, but will make deductions.
o    The court awards, in this case “nominal damages”
•    Any contract victim is entitled to token damages.
•    Unlike negligence, where one is entitled only to the damages one can prove.
•    Contract suit is more like a trespass suit.  Victorious pl. is always entitled to something.
•    Pl. can sue on expectation or reliance theory.  Reliance here would be more than expectation.
o    Though pl. may have that election, reliance recovery may not put one in a better position than had the contract been performed.

Jarvis v. Swan’s Tours p. 92
•    Here the law confronts an invisible emotional injury.
•    Denning notes that the law has had great difficulty bringing itself to a situation where it will award damages for invisible injuries.
o    In this case, the law made a sort of breakthrough.
•    Swan’s Tours’ brochure set up certain expectations of their resort.
o    Whether the brochure promised him these things is an issue.  We will take this up later in the term.
•    Jarvis, after his sub-par vacation, sues for breach of contract.
•    Denning begins by citing two prior railway cases in which he says courts declined to award for mental distress or for “mere inconvenience, sich as annoyance or loss of temper, or vexation, or for being disappointed in a particular thing which you have set your mind upon.”
•    Denning goes on to say, “I think those limitations are out of date.” ¶4.
o    Here lies the basis for the new law.  Denning.  Making it up as he goes along.  What a guy.
•    Denning gives Jarvis twice what he paid for the tour.  The trial judge had given him half his cost.
o    There is no basis for this award of damages.

•    Are employment contracts covered under state-of-mind?
•    Pages 94-97 show the consequences of Denning’s ruling in this case.

Damages:  discussion
•    Divided into two categories:  General and Special
•    General
o    The type that the law presumes a pl. would have to have incurred in the course of the contract.
o    Compensate for damage which the law presumes that such a pl. under such a breach, would have incurred.
o    Can included annoyance, frustration, etc.
•    Special damages are of the type for which one can produce a receipt.
o    Things purchased, etc.
•    Aggrevative and punative / exculport
•    Aggrevative compensate the victim for aggrevated damage.  They are compensatory.
•    Where the breach has occurred in circumstances where the victim of the breach has sustained more annoyance, disappointment, etc. than the norm, then the court can award aggrevative damages to recognize that the victim has suffered aggrevated damage…
•    Punitive damages – Contrasted with aggrevative damages.  When these arise, it is in circumstances similar to aggrevative damages.  Point though, is not to compensate the pl., but to punish and make an example of the defendant.
•    In reading the materials, note that the courts do not like to award aggrevative damages, and really do not like to award punitive damages.
•    When courts do award these types of damages, the damages are most often low.
•    There is one ON case where a civil jury awarded against an insurance company a very large sum.
•    Judges, on the other hand, have had an unwritten vow to not let Canadian civil litigation evolve into that which the U.S.’ has become.

For next day, read the notes.  Of course feel free to read the associated cases.  Read Fidler v. Sun Life Assurance, and Hadley  v. Baxendale.

Contracts and Torts
•    The relevance of tort principles and contract principles differ in different scenarios.
•    when trying to determine whether a pre-contractual utterance is of legal significance, and whether that significance sounds in contract or sounds in tort, it is an either/or choice.
•    Most pre-contractual utterances don’t have any legal significance, but supposing it does (it induced the subsequent contract) that legal sig. is in one or the other.
•    It is either a statement/representation (any legal significance it has will only be in tort).
•    OR it is a promise/warranty (any legal significance it has will only be in contract).
•    Possibilities:  No legal significance; legal sig. in tort; legal sig. in contract
•    This is not a choice.  A pre-contractual utterance has a true characterization.

Murray v. Sperry Rand Corp.  (page 673)
•    Breach of the collateral contract, not the contract of purchase and sale.
•    Entering into the principle contract for purchase was the consideration and the acceptance for the collateral contract.
•    Manufacturer:  After dealing with the Canadian distributor, judge turns his eye to the U.S. manufacturer, who also printed the brochure upon which the plaintiff relied.
•    ¶10 – “representations” – about to tell us that the representations are assurance about the future.
•    Does not formulate how the promises get into the collateral contract.
•    Became a unilateral offer:  “If you offer into a contract to purchase our machine, it will have these characteristics.”
•    [note that there are 3 collateral contracts resting on the shoulders of the main contract here].
•    In general, it would not be true that one can be liable for breach of promise even though the promise is not inside a contract…
•    has just held them liable for breach of promise
•    ¶s 10 &11 are contradictory.  10 – says there is a contract.  11 – says that may be liable for the promise even though no contract.
•    “would be better if we could cross out ¶11”
•    Breach of promise.
•    Has all of them liable – not in contract, but in contracts collateral to the principle contract.

Esso Petroleum v. Mardon
•    Esso lining up a location for a gas station.
•    Estimated, based on access to an adjoining busy street, that the thoroughput would be 200,000 gallons / year.
•    Before built, local planning auth. forced them to build the pumps where they could not be seen from the front, and gave access only from a side-street.
•    Didn’t change estimate.
•    The person who owned the ‘franchise’ eventually was forced to close his business.
•    The pre-contractual study induced him to lease the location and to pay moneys to esso for the use of their brand and what have you.
•    Suing on the pre-contractual ‘utterances’
•    Must determine whether it had any legal sig. at all  – if so, whether in tort or contract.
•    statement/representation=tort.  Promise/warranty=contract.
•    ¶7, saying the well-trod way around Heilbut, Symons, is to take a statement and say that it is a promise.
•    ¶8 – says that Esso warranted (promised) that the forecast / study was sound.
•    ¶10 – negligent misrepresentation – if not warranty, liable for neg. misstatement
•    ¶11 –
•    courts try to find the intersection of contract and tort.
•    Used to be that the easiest conclusion to reach was that if a contract covered a particular incident, then courts would look to the contract and the contract only to determine the responsibilities and liabilities between the parties.
•    Esso saying that because they chose to define their relationship concerning that site in a contract, Marsden must find a way to vindicate his claim in the contract.  Since they are asserting this, it is likely that there is a limitation of liability clause inside the contract.
•    This is not an unorthodox argument.
•    Denning, here, says that there is a certain type of contract, under which, if the undertaker of the contract breaches is, he falls under the standard of care usual for the profession – can equally be characterized as a breach of contract or tort.
•    Most contracts don’t involve a standard of care.
•    Think of the standard of care of a lawyer to a client.  There is a duty of care to the client due to the retainer, but also under tort.  A lawyer’s negligence can equally be characterized under breach of contract or the tort of negligence.
•    Denning says that Esso’s study was a negligent misprepresentation, and Esso is therefore liable in tort for damages.

V.K. Mason Construction v. Bank of Nova Scotia – page 715
•    Mason doesn’t want to enter into contract to build for Courtot Investments Ltd. unless Courtot’s bank ‘stood behind’ the contract.
•    The Bank writes Mason Const. a letter.
•    This pre-contractual utterance doesn’t involve a contract with the ‘person’ making the utterance.
•    Bank says, “…financing sufficient to cover the constrution of the subject complex.”  page 717
•    rather reckless wording… no limit involved.
•    Based on this assurance, Mason signed the building contract with Courtot.
•    Things went bad.
•    Sued in contract; sued in tort.
•    No good to sue Courtot – insolvent.
•    page 718-719-720
•    719 – contract
•    720 – tort
•    Wilson J.  takes the view that intention was lacking to form a contract.  There was no animus.
•    ¶19 – would be a unilateral contract
•    Does not believe that reasonable business people would construe the bank’s letter as a guarantee.  Reasonable – objective test.
•    ¶22 – Negligent Misrepresentation analysis.
•    Finds that the bank was indeed careless.
•    says overlooked the fact that what Mason was seeking was an assurance that Courtot would have sufficient funds
•    Bank should have known that the letter would be construed as an assurance of something over and above the terms of the loan.
•    Says induced Mason to sign a contract with Courtot ¶24

Read:
page 723-24 – suing on election promises
725 – first time  SCC struggled with… something.  Nunes Diamonds Ltd. v. Dominion Electric Protection.
726 – Queen v. Cognos Inc.

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

•    2(3) – seems to be saying that one cannot sign away the rights assigned to you in the act.
•    24 - Where there is a contract for the sale or supply of a consumer product, the parties cannot agree to exclude or restrict any warranty or remedy provided by this Act except as provided in sections 25 and 26.
o    this section qualifies s. 2(3) – qualify only in accordancw w/25 & 26
•    25(1) – Subject to subsection (4), where there is a contract for the sale or supply of a consumer product, the parties may agree to exclude or restrict any remedy provided by this Act for breach of an express warranty, but such agreement shall be ineffective to the extent that it is shown that it would not be fair or reasonable to allow reliance on such agreement.
•    25(3) - In determining whether it would be fair or reasonable to allow reliance on an agreement to exclude or restrict any remedy provided by this Act for breach of an express warranty, regard shall be had to all the circumstances of the case.
•    so exclusion is possible as long as it is ‘fair and reasonable’
o    this is where Wilson J. got her language in Hunter v. Syncrude
o    This is the legislature’s response.  Judges do have the auth. to modify contracts in which consumers have signed away their rights.
o    In doing so, must strive for ‘fairness and reasonability’
•    This is more supple than Denning’s ver. of Fundamental Breach, which was an automatic exclusion of the limitation of liability clause.
•    Very little litigation on this act, considering its ubiquity
o    2 poss reasons:
•    The act is so effective that business parties settle rather than go through litigation while knowing that they have treated the consumer unfairly or unreasonably.
•    Consumers are foolish and lazy, especially those who have been foolish enough to sign away their rights in the first place.
•    Professor Door (?) is the drafter of this act.  Just retired from UNB.

Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd.
•    There is only one context in all of contractdom in which the sub-classification of contract terms is relevant.
o    warranty; condition
o    However, in context of remedies available to victim it is important. If victim of breach of “condition” then you have lrger selection of remedies/options than of warranty.If you are the victim of a beach of a condition, then more options are available.
•    can treat the contract as at an end; can sue for damages
o    Whereas, the victim of a breach of warranty has no other option but to make a claim for damanges – cannot cease to perform the contract.
•    For most contexts – it does not matter.
•    This case concerns a charter (of a ship).
•    When the vessel was leased, the price of shipping was high, but then went down.
•    Reason for high price of charters at this time:  Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal; formed crisis between England/France, and Egypt.  Invaded Egypt, which sank vessels in the Suez Canal.  Voyages between The Atlantic and Asia therefore took much longer.
•    To get out of the contract, tried to claim that the vessel was unsatisfactory and unseaworthy.
o    Diplock ¶2 page 576 – famous sentence for comment on final exams – look up synallagmatic
•    “human prescience being limited, it seldom does so exhaustively and often fails to do so at all.”
•    ¶3 – does the occurrence of the event deprive the party who has further undertakings still to perform of
o    If it was that kind of a breach, as to deprive the victimized party of the whole benefit, then it is a breach of a condition.
o    If it doesn’t deprive of the whole benefit, then it is the breach of a warranty
•    ¶9 – in real life, cannot classify all contract terms into just conditions and warranties.
o    supposed to classify at the point of formation
o    cannot with certainty classify all the terms as such.
•    Ex:  If buying a blue car and got a red car – difficult to say that you were deprived of the full benefit of the contract.
•    Diplock says in ¶10 – “No doubt there are many simple contratual undertakings, sometimes express but more often because of the very…”
o    There are obviously some contractual terms which are conditions
o    And there are some that are conditions
•    ¶11 – come that are of a more complex character
o    Saying that there is a 3rd class of contract term.
o    suggests that it is numerous.
o    cannot say whether or not  breach of it would deprive the victimized party essentially of the full benefit of the contract.
o    Must be classified not a priori, but from the actual consequences of the actual breach.
o    Will turn out to be condition-like, or warranty-like.
•    So we have, at the formation of a contract, conditions and warranties
•    Or they are innominant terms (or complex terms) which are divided into condition-like, or warranty-like – these are classified from the perspective of the breach.

•    In regards to this contract, says that the term that was breached was seaworthiness.
o    can be more or less substantial – depending on the situation (a hole in the hull or engine trouble)
o    Cannot tell at the formation who substantial the breach will be.

Sail Labrador Ltd. V. “Challenge One” (The)
•    SCC had to ask itself whether the contract had within it a term tatamount to a “time is of the essence” provision.
•    This is a common provision.
•    Nothing expressly in the contract to this effect.
•    SCC said ‘no’.  Did not think there was anything to that effect in the contract.
•    Though the breaching party had breached the contract, hadn’t breached a condition…

Page 654 – Misrepresentations and Warranties
•    There are 2 problem areas in Contracts where trouble tends to lie:  Exemption clauses; Pre-contractual words
•    Pre-contractual words:  For instance, the sales person may say something to induce the customer to enter into the contract.  This ‘something’ may turn out to be false.
o    Cutomer wishes to say that while there is nothing wrong with the contract per se, something happened prior to it that is relevant.
o    Evidence rule – where you have an apparently complete contract, extrinsic evidence is not admissible for modifying or contradicting the contract.
o    And yet we have seen situations where evidence does do this, but is being intro’d for another purpose.
•    The words that the ‘sales person’ utters outside the contract, but which critically induce the contract (page 654) might have 1 of 3 classifications:
o    1)  Puffery:  Words which have no legal significance.  They are mere puffery.  Ex:  “This is the best used car in Fredericton.”
o    2)  Misrepresentation:  looks like a statement of fact.  In Gallant v. All State, the assertion that the buckwheat would kill off the weeds were a statement.  If they induced the customer to enter into the ccontract, and if the words were false, then they are called a tortious misrepresentation.   Falls under tort.
o    3)  Warranties (promises):  If the words are not words of statement, but are of promise, those words (if they have legal consequence) can have consequence only in contract (the realm of promises).

Heilbut
•    Customer calls stock broker regarding the launching of a new rubber company.
•    Stock broker:  “We are.”  – entire case turns on these words.
•    Customer agrees to buy 6,000 shares
•    Company turns out not to be shares in what could legitimately be called a rubber company.
•    Does not sue the  company – it is insolvent.
•    Customer sues the stockbroker.
•    Not complaining about anything inside the contract.  He did get the shares.  He didn’t want the shares.
•     “We are” – could be a statement of fact, giving rise to liability, if at all, in tort.
•    Misprepresentation.
o    Could be a promise (warranty), giving rise to liability, if at all, under contract.
•    Problem in giving these words sig. in contract – a naked promise is valueless…
•    page 662 – At trial, the jury found that the company could not properly be called a rubber company.
o    Pre-contractual utterance was false.
o    D’s did not make a fradulant representation.
o    Did find that the SB did promise that it was a rubber compnay.
•    HoL is stuck with the findings of the jury – in particular that there was no fraud. misrepresentation here.
•    Seems that at trial, P argued that “We are” was a misrepresentation – argues under tort law.
o    If one can succeed that “we are” is fradulant misrepresentation, then can get damages.
o    in 1913, the only other type of misrepresentation was “innocent misrepresentation” – remedy is not damages.  It is a return to pre-contractual situation.
•    Only remedy avail. for innocent misrepresentation is recision; calling off the contract.
o    Here, cannot be rescinded, as has already been carried out.
•    If took the tort route, the only buttom to press would be fraudlant misrepresentation but then would be faced with the reality that fraud is extremely difficult to prove, because the courts have a high threshold to accept that the D. was guilty of fraud.

For tomorrow, read this case.
Read Dick Bentley, & Murray