Contract Law

Consideration
•    Promises – the law does not enforce promises per se.
o    Promises of gifts are not enforceable.
o    The law considers the spirit of altruism rare.
•    What criteria should we use to categorize the subset of promises that attract legal enforceability?
o    What would be a sensible way to do this?
o    The promises which the law should be designed to enforce should be “serious promises”.
•    Non-trivial
•    Or seriously-intended
o    This is approximately the majority approach of the world’s legal systems.
•    The majority of the world uses the civil system
•    In Qc. law, there is a proposition that goes back to Roman law, that a cause is enforceable (from Latin, causa).
•    This is a straightforward approach.  “We’ll enforce where there is a good reason.”
o    This is intuitive.  It is not a technical rule – aligns with the ordinary instinct of ordinary law.
o    This is not the approach that we take.
•    What criteria should be use to categorize the subset of promises that attract legal enforceability…?
o    Could go from the intuitive approach
o    The Roman approach used formality.
•    If ppl want to know that their arrangement is enforceable, then we could have (in our legal scheme), a way to formally attach something to their promise…
•    The act of “attaching” something to the promise could act as a signal that it is meant to be enforceable.
•    Ex:  ‘A promise in writing could signify that a party meant for it to be enforced.’
•    Ex:  Signature – could make it so that something would have to be signed to be an enforceable promise [problem with this is that every contract, in order to be enforceable, would require this – even simple transactions between vendor/purchaser]
•    “stamps” – issued by gov
•    shaking hands, spitting and shaking hands
•    In Rome, the parties stood facing one another, and recited to one another the terms of the contract. Stipulatia
•    Ex:  “I _____, take you _______…”

•    We do not work under this system
o    Exception:  Promises made under seal are enforceable.  This is a hold-over of (at least) the middle ages.
•    In order to give, must have intention (animus) and transfer.
•    (as well as offer, acceptance, and consideration).
o    Some things are not susceptible to manual tradition.
•    Shares (Choses in action) – how does one give a share?

•    Primarily, we no longer use “seals”

•    Scenario:
o    Person A promises person B a plane ticket to Florida.  Person B goes out and makes purchases for the trip, racking up expenses of $150.  Person A’s circumstances change, and the offer for the ticked is revoked.
•    What if Person B sues Person A for the $150, to put them back into the circumstances where they were (it is obvious that they would lose a suit for the cost of the ticket itself).
•    The court, for the most part, does not recognize even reasonable reliance on promises.
o    Our legal system does not enforce any promises that are not contained within a contract.
•    [American language]  The law enforces bargains – something for something – a trade-off.

•    In order to approach these cases, must recontextualize
o    If the problem in front of you has nothing to do with offer/acceptance (more to do with whether there was consideration [I offer you my car for $1000; I accept]), then this type of analysis will get you nowhere.
o    Will need to identify a consideration problem, which will lead to an abandonment of offerer/offeree.
•    “I promise to convey title to my car to you if you pay me $1000.”  “I promise to pay you $1000 if you convey to me the title to your car.”
•    Same sale transaction constructed as an exchange of promises.
•    In a contract, both parties are promisers, and both are promisees.
•    When we try to analyse whether there was consideration, we need to use the language of promisers/promisees.
•    Consideration is what you paid to the other side in exchange for the other side’s promise.
•    Can view the formation of a contract as an exchange of promises.
•    By the time the parties get to court, one party is suing the other (at least).
•    Plaintiff and defendant
•    Plaintiff is always suing in his/her capacity as promisee, and the defendant is defending in his/her capacity as promiser
o    By the time we get to litigation, only one of the original two-fold promiser/promisee relationships is relevant.
o    The one that is relevant is the relation whereby one allegedly promised something to the other, and broke that alleged promise.
o    In a contracts case, every defendant is an alleged promise-breaker; every plaintiff is a disappointed (alleged) promisee.
•    Mu    st understand which of the two promises is broken.
•    All contract litigation (besides the odd exception, of course…), it will always be promisee vs. promiser.
•    “Why is the plaintiff in a contracts case always suing as promisee?”
•    “Why is the defendant in a contracts case always defending in their capacity as promiser?”

Dalhousie College v. Boutilier
•    Boutilier does promise Dalhousie $5000.
•    Dalhousie, however, does not promise Boutilier anything.
o    Yes, they built building, etc., but they did not promise Boutilier that this would be in exhange for this $5000.
o    They promised him nothing – it was not a bargain; not something for something; not an exchange.
o    Even if these buildings, purchasers, etc., had been made on the strength of his promise, that does not retroactively convert his promise into a contract promise.
•    Subscription form:  Does Boutilier not say, “In consideration of the subscription of others…”?
o    Why is this not consideration?
•    His motivation is irrelevant.  Motive is not consideration.
•    They did not promise to rely on his $5000
o    Mere reliance
o    Only kind that matters is “bargained-for reliance” – if they had bargained their ability build buildings for his $5000, it might have been consideration.
•    The difference is how the parties treated the building of the building.
•    Dal did not do it in exachange for his $5000.
•    He promised, and they reacted by building the building – this is not  consideration.
**Nothing is consideration, unless the parties have handled it as consideration.**

“To hold otherwise would be to hold that a naked, voluntary promise may be converted into a binding legal contract by the subsequent action of the promisee alone without the consent, express or implied, of the promisor.” P 357 para 6.

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