Contract Law

Privity

•    If C is a stranger to a contract between A & B, then C must fail legal action

•    In a contract between A & B in which C is a beneficiary, the A-B contract contemplates C.  C is still a third party, but not a stranger – is actually named in the agreement.
o    Beneficiary – the recipient of a benefit under the contract.
o    Our system of law treats the third-party beneficiary the same as the third-party stranger.
o    1861 case established this.
o    in earlier cases, C coud sue on the contract
o    once contract theory evolved, C became a victim of the quest for theoretical purity.

•    If A & B form a contract with A working as an agent for C, then C is not a mere third-party beneficiary.  C is a party.  A is not.
•    If A & B have a contract which has not yet been performed (any contract creates private rights – rights are property; choses in action), A has rights against B, and can, if A chooses, “alienate” their rights against B to another party.  Can sell or give incorporeal rights (assign).
o    C gains the rights to what A assigns C.
o    A-C contract.  A had rights under the A-B contract, but sold them to C = assignment.
o    Question:  What rights does C have under the A-B contract?  Suppose B breaks the promise – Can C sue?
•    Equity will allow C to sue B.
•    A is still in the original contract, but so is C.  C could sue B, but might have to sue B using A’s name.
•    Superficially, case would be A v. B,  but would actually be C sueing B.  This is how equity works in this situation.
•    Now there is a statute in every province which simplifies this situation.

Third A-B-C relationship:
•    The trust example
•    A & B have a contract (if unperformed, then each have subsisting rights against the other.  Rights are property.  Choses in action.)
o    A may hold the property (the right against B), not for his or her own benefit, but for the benefit of C.
•    A – trustee (of contractual rights)
•    C – beneficiary of the trust.
•    Referred to as cestqui que trust
o    If A does not act as a vigilant trustee, sueing B for unperformed actions, then C can unequivocally sue B.
o    Here, dealing with property – in the eyes of equity, A’s rights do not belong to A at all.  Belong to C.  Not suing on basis of contract.  Sueing for property.  A has legal title, C has equitable title.

New Zealand Shipping Co. Ltd. v. A.M. Satterthwaite & Co. Ltd.
•    There was a view that courts do not have the authority to change the privity rule, and says that the onus is on the legislature to change it.
•    The tide turned a little in New Zealand Shipping (page 381 onwards)
•    House of Lords, though unwilling to change the rule, softened up on recognizing trust and agency to get around the rule.
o    Did not change the rule – signalled a softening.

London Drugs Ltd. v. Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd.
Page 385
•    Goes much futher than New Zealand Shipping
•    Does in private law something that is rarely seen – grapples with the doctrine itself.
•    Interesting discussion on the issue addressed by Simonds (not the place of the court to change even judge-created laws).
•    SCC addresses the question.  Iocobucci J. says that judges can make incremental changes, but not large changes in well-accepted private-law rules.
•    Agrees that major changes to this would have to come from legislatures – in Canada, this means each provincial legislature, due to the Constitution.
•    Contract between A & B, which agrees that in certain circumstances, B will not sue C.  Shield promise.  Exemption promise.
o    Contrast to contract such as insurance policy where the goal is to confer a benefit on C.
•    Limitation of liability clause.  C’s defence would be based on the contract between A & B.
o    Court reasons that letting C defend itself is less radical than conferring a benefit on C.
•    London Drugs is a bailment case.
o    The bailee is a corporation – a warehouse.
o    Corporations can operate only through human agency – human beings.
o    The employees are negligent in handling the bailor’s chattel.
o    They are tortfeasors
o    The bailor sues the bailee – the human employees of the bailee.
o    Page 385 – the liability clause.
•    The bailor did not pay the additional charge to cover warehouse liability
•    Means, in effect, that the bailor took the risk on themselves.
•    In the suit against the employer (the warehouse) the warehouse was covered against liability by this clause, and was liable for only $40.
o    What of the employees?  Question of whether they were shielded.
o    Note:
•    1)  The reciprocity objection:  would allow a person to sue on a contract when that person could not be sued on the contract.
•    Lack of reciprocity
•    This is a trad. objection allowing C to sue as a third party.
•    2)  A & B contract.  One of the rights is to change their contract (though this is sometimes tricky -  need consideration).  As soon as one says that C acquires a right under A-B contract, that seems to inhibit A & B’s right to alter contracts.
•    The law does not allow us to destroy other people’s rights.
o    Iacobucci J. addresses these issues.
•    Says that rather than trying to find a way around the privity problem, will instead change the doctrine of privity.
•    Do not think that he tries to find that the warehouse contracted on the right of its employees.
•    Does not find any rel. in privity between the bailor and the bailee’s employees
•    Allows the employees to have rights even though they are not in privity
•    Says that in an employment situation, when A deals with B, knowing that B has employees, and that the actions can only be carried out by the employees, to give B’s employees certain rights under the A-B contract is not so very radical (should not take the bailor by surprise).
•    Much turns on C being an employee of B.
•    Paragraph 46, page 395.
o    “I am of the view that employees may obtain such a benefit if the following requirements are satisfied…
•    limitation of liability clause must, expressly or impliedly extend its benefit to employees
•    the employees seeking the benefit of the clause must have been acting in the course of their employment and been performing the very services provided for in the contract between their employer and the plaintiff (customer) when the loss occurred.
o    Said that the bailor was promising the bailee that if the bailee’s employees committed a tort, they would be shielded from liability above $40
•    ends up (on page 397) saying that by implication, the promise to the bailee covered not just the bailee, but also the employees (note – not saying that the bailor promised the employees – promised the bailee).
•    Cannot find the promise expressed – finds it implied.
•    Top of 397 – employees were not to benefit?  Says the language of the clause means inevitably that the employees were not covered.
•    The test of intention here, then, is a very shallow test.
•    Believes, on the facts, that when the bailor and bailee did contemplate (though not expressed) that the employees would be shielded from liability.
•    In the context of employment, employees can raise defences to lawsuits – the SCC has made an enormous practical and symbolic inroad into the doctrin of privity.
•    NOT saying that the employees were parties to the contract – saying they were intended beneficiaries.
•    As such, can invoke this defensively as a shield.  Still would not allow this to be used offensively.
•    The reason courts do not take the trust or agency argument and make them cure-alls is just because they would be cure-alls

Read up to Law Reform Act for next day.
Monday’s class will be review.
Can have another review class on Tuesday – 12:30pm tentatively

[It’s been awhile…]

page 311 – review Foakes v. Beer
…long line of sorrows springing from this case…
•    Pinnel’s Case:  A debtor’s promise to pay a creditor a lessor sum is not consideration
•    Foakes v. Beer not altogether satisfactory – note that judges both express sheepishess at their ruling.
•    Note 1 page 311 – Mercantile Law Amendment Act R.S.O. 1990 – intended to overrule Foakes v. Beer.
o    Passed in ON the year after Foakes v. Beer.  Also passed in B.C., AB, SK, and MN (Western Provinces).
o    Rare for a legislature to take steps to reverse a ruling
o    The Atl. Provinces still use Foakes v. Beer.
o    Must understand the hazard of the rule of this case.
•    Think of how Roffey Bros. would apply to Foakes v. Beer.
o    Courts said did not apply.  This is because of precedent.  Foakes was a HoL decision, whereas

Estoppel
High Trees p 315
•    Denning takes time to say that if the other view of estoppel prevails, would undo Foakes v. Beer (indirectly, but estoppel route)
o    Would estop the creditor from acting against the debtor in such a case.
•    Says it again in Combe v. Combe p 318
o    Again, not a Foakes v. Beer case.

D. & C. Builders Ltd. v. Rees
•    Denning ought to end this case with a vidincation of the stance of estoppel.
•    Does not.  The debtor loses.  The creditor triumphs.  Why?
•    Explained against rule of Foakes v. Beer.
•    Must examine against backdrop of estoppel
o    Remember that this is promissory estoppel.
•    Recall that when Denning ‘invented’ this in high trees, the reach of the doctrine was unknown (p 316)
o    Combe v. Combe – Denning pulled back from the potential effect of his own words.
•    Affirmed the principle of promissory estoppel, but added *‘provinded that the promissee is not invoking estoppel offensively [is not suing on the basis of estoppel!]’*
•    Sword / shield distinction.
•    Now on to D. & C. Builders.
•    From structure of the case (fact that it is three judges, all of whom issue agreeing judgements), see that the judges agree on the result, but not how to get there.
o    Same as in Brophy Bros.?
•    Facts of D. & C. Builders – builders do a job for the defendants who claimed shoddy workmanship, and could not pay the £482 balance.  Offerered £300, which the builders had to take as they were in financial trouble.
o    Is the ‘agreement’ to take the £300 binding?
•    Is this a case of ‘promise intended to be relied on, and then relied on’?
•    Denning, in High Trees and Combe v. Combe, has led us to believe that it will – but it does not.
•    Note paragragh 2 page 323:  facts.  “At this stage there was no dispute as to the work done.”
o    What is the significance of this?
o    From Stilk, if prior to entering into the negotiation, there had been a legal dispute between the two sides in regards to how much the Reeses properly owed (with potentially shoddy work in mind), then could  have compromised / settled on £300, and it would have been binding.
•    Each side would have bargained to give up legal claim agianst the other.
•    However, when the fee was reduced, there was no legal dispute
•    For some reason, the complaint that Mrs. Rees makes at top of page 324 does not count – does not seem to have been in correct form?  i.e.  We do not owe you this money because the workmanship was not up to par.
•    Why does estoppel not come to the rescue of Mr. & Mrs. Rees?
o    The court does not allow them to estop the creditors from asserting their strict legal rights to the full balance owing.
o    Why can they not use estoppel as their shield?
•    Mrs. Rees had overstepped – p 325 para 10 – “She had no right to say any such thing.”  She had no right to threaten them with non-payment, knowing that they were on the brink of bankruptsey…
•    This is odd.  Obviously do not normally have to be altruistic in negotiations.
•    Bell:  Don’t get distracted by this point, because it is so strange.
o    Think rather of the larger point – Denning reminds us of High Trees – estoppel doctrine is an equitable doctrine.  EVERYTHING EQUITABLE IS DISCRETIONARY.  This means that the court can exercise its discretion in withholding what it might otherwise grant.
o    Traditionally say law is the realm of rights, and equity is a realm of discretion (not rights).
o    Note para 9 page 325 – “Equity has stretched out a merciful hand to help the debtor…”
o    Para 10 – ‘not going to do it here though.’
o    Note:  Promissee cannot sue on promissory estoppel; Promissory estoppel is equitable and therefore discretionary.
•    To accept Denning’s hint in High Trees and Combe, that promissory estoppel would get one out of rule from Foakes v. Beer, then Dankwerts L.J. and Winn L.J’s reasons for decision might be startling.
o    Do not acknowledge awareness of the idea of promissory estoppel as applied in high trees and Combe.
o    No hint that promissory estoppel might have applied.
•    Lord Denning’s decision from this case is the most famous and referred to.
o    Does not, however, carry a majority
o    What does the case stand for??
o    Question of whether estoppel will get one out from under rule of Foakes v. Beer remains unanswered and ambiguous.
o    Consult readings on reserve…

Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd. v. Maher
[Bell:  “The last challenging case of the term]
High Court in Aus.  Seems to be their Supreme Court.
5 judges – 4 wrote…
•    This case seems to abolish the sword / shield distinction
•    Seems to say that there are cases where the promissee can sue on the basis of promissory estoppel.
•    Further difficulty:  in this case, the counsel for Mahar … in this case there isn’t even a promise … the challenge for the counsel for Mahar is to first show that there was an express promise where there was none.
•    Implicit promise gathered from the facts.  Showed that there was in effect a promise.
•    Facts:  Waltons wanted to develop a site for shopping centre.  Bell guesses that Waltons is likely an Aus. Walmart.  Mahars are landowners – there is a site with a building on it, which Waltons wants to occupy as tenant.  Mahars is required to destroy the existing building, and to build a new one to Waltons’ criteria.
o    Get close to a deal.  Waltons’ solicitor sends a draft lease to the Mahar’s solicitor which is pretty close to final form
o    P 333 – notes that have not obtained Waltons’ specific instruction, but would advise the very next day if there was any disagreement.
o    There was no contact the next day, nor for ‘some months’
o    Maher’s, knowing that Waltons’ could only use a new building, tore down the old building in the interim, and began building Waltons’ custom-designed building.
o    40% complete by the time Waltons’ solicitors sent a letter saying that the plan was not going ahead.
•    Before getting to estoppel, must get to a promise.
•    Here there had not been a promise, as such.
•    Somehow, all of the courts accepted that Waltons’ conduct amounted in effect to a promise [do not get hung up on this – Bell]
•    At trial and at first level of appeal, the Mahars won, not on basis of promissory estoppel, but on legal estoppel
o    Legal estoppel turns on representation of existing fact…
o    Whereas in high trees, it was not about existing fact, but on the basis of a promise.
o    Here, this is a case of enforcing a promise
•    Combe v. Combe – sword / shield distinction.
•    Para 16 & 17 page334
o    Para 20 – begin argument by saying that looking back at high trees, ignoring combe, high trees is broad enough to cover this situation.
o    However, thanks to Combe, promissory estoppel is a defensive equity, not an offensive equity.
•    However, being defensive does not mean that it may only be used by defendants…
•    Unless court intervenes, would be to the promisee’s detriment.
o    Trad. objections to using estoppel as a sword is that it would supercede the Doctrine of Consideration.
o    Next trad. objection is that enforcing consideration as promise is to enforce gratutious promises
•    The law does not enforce gift promises.
•    Now to say that all promises without consideration are gift-promises (though within high-theory is high true) is slightly misleading, but this is an objection.
•    Question is that if we did start enforcing gifts, where would it end?
•    Para 23 & 24:
o    23:  talk about Crabbe v. Arun District Council
•    Crabb owned land.
•    Has access to the street (let’s say, at the South)
•    Another access at the North.
•    Crabb gets offer to divide the land
•    Local municipality tells him that though the south access is the normal access to the land, he can use the north access legally.
•    Sells parcel B – the south part of the land.
•    Doesn’t bother reserving a right-of-way, because he has been promised the north access by the municipality.
•    After this deal goes through, the municipality tells him that the North access cannot be used.
•    He sues them, resulting in this case.
•    Crabb has a promise that he wants to enforrce:
•    No seal
•    No consideration
•    Must rely on estoppel – a promise intended to be relied on, and relied on.
o    Problem of course is that he would be using estoppel as a sword not a shield.
o    This case came before Denning…
o    Denning said, “There are estoppels, and then there are estoppels…”  Some can only be used defensively, some others can be used offensively.
o    Allows Crabb to estop the Arun District Council from going back on their promise.
•    This is referred to as proprietary estoppel
o    So-called to distinguish from ordinary promissory estoppel, and because it involves ownership of land.
o    Not subject to sword / shield principle such as promissory estoppel.  Exception to Combe v. Combe rule.
•    This is the first thing that the Aus. court points out – that the sword / shield principle is not one that the law enforeces rigoursly.
•    Para 24 – look at the U.S. and how they handle estoppel
o    S90 of Restatement on Contracts
•    Restatements are not statutes.
•    They are literally restatements by legal thinkers of what they believed the law should be (American Law Institute).
•    “A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or a third person and which does induce such ation or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.  The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires.”
•    U.S. verstion of estoppel – pitched more aggressively.

Next day – will look up to Formality – At least as far as The Seals.