Contract Law

•    Contracts are a creation – they are legally enforceable obligations that did not previously exist (prior to the contract) [self-imposed obligations]
•    Through the free exercise of our wills we impose these obligations on ourselves.
o    Hence the derivative idea that if our will isn’t free (ex: intoxication or subversion) we are not bound – this is because it was not, in such situations, an exercise of free wills.
•    The basis of contracts is the freely functioning human will.
•    Issue of Intention:  A contract is the product of two intentions meeting.
o    How do we ascertain what the other party intends?
o    How does the court know?
o    The approach that courts take is to say (implicitly, by rulings) that they take the object approach.  The court does not ask what was intended.
o    Ex:  In Carbolic Smoke Ball, did not call the president of the company to the stand to ask what the intent was.  Rather, when one has to decide what the parties intended, the judge decides based on what the party would seem to have intended, to a reasonable observer.
o    We apply the test of reasonableness p481 – par7
o    We must understand the words in the way that an ordinary, resonable person would. P 442 – bottom of para2.
•    Note that we attribute that intention to the parties.
o    Still a product of the will of the parties.
o    We (the court) just get to say what that will is.
o    A person can end up “intending” what was furthest from their mind at the time of the agreement.
o    Do remember that even though the judge decides what was intended, it is imputed to the parties.
•    Headings (abbreviations):
o    Q.B. – Queen’s Bench
o    C.A. – Court of Appeal
o    L.J. – Lord Justice
o    M.R. – master of the roles (the keeper of the records – as result of adjudicature acts, made CJ of the civil cases.  The LCJ fulfilled the same role for the criminal cases.  Lindly M.R. spoken as, “Lord Lindly, Master of the Roles)

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
•    Mrs. Carlill suing, alleging a contract between the two.  Not on the basis of a contract of sale, but on a more elusive contract.
•    “The Law is like Prince Philip.  It’s always a step and a half behind life.”
•    What is there in this ad (and its context) that make it different from other ads (which usually cannot be construed as contracts).
o    An advocate would want to know more than just the words – would also want to know the context – type of newspaper (reputation of publication might colour the reading of the advertisement.  I.e.  A gossip rag versus the British Journal of Medicine).  A better lawyer will make such things relevant to the case.
•    What arguments could be made for the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.?
o    A reasonable person would understand that no company would intend to put themselves into this situation.  £100 would be an incredible amount of money.
o    If this is the offer, then the offeree is everyone whose eyes fell upon that ad.  Is it reasonable to assume that it offered it to the entire world?
o    Either there is no direct offeree, or there is no offeree
o    Company also argues that there is no acceptance.
o    A pamphlet could be viewed as a literay form.  Literary forms are prone to exagerration and hyperbole.
o    There were no instructions given in regards to claiming of the moneys.  In order to be claimed as an offer, something must be fairly complete.  This is essential information.
o    The word “reward” is not a contractual word.
o    Nudum pactum – naked agreement.  A considerationless agreement.  Non-enforceable [from page 444 – para 9]
o    “…any disease” is extravagant.  Tempered somewhat by “…by taking cold”

For Mrs. Carlill
What makes this ad different from other ads?  What makes it an offer?
•    The £1000 deposited into the account adds a ‘sincerity factor’.  It is a preemptive measure against skepticism, meant to convey confidence and promote sales.
•    The detailed instructions amount to an onerous path of acceptance.  The inference is that if this path is followed, then it constitutes acceptance, which means there must also have been an offer.
•    The Offer is made only to the subset of the world who:  buys the product; uses it while strictly adhering to the product’s directions; still contracts influenza.

When one examines a case, not necessarily looking for “rightness” or “truth”.  When analyzing the cases in the book, must look for the rationale and reasoning.  Must be able to make reasonable arguments based on the words.

•    P444:  One of the company’s arguments that were was no acceptance was that Mrs. Carlill did not send a letter, etc. to notify acceptance
•    The first the company knew about it was when the claim was made for the £100.
•    What of the idea that Acceptance is not Acceptance until communication is effected?
o    The judges say that the offeror is entitled to waive the terms of acceptance.
o    Here they say that Carbolic implicitly waived the terms of acceptance.
o    Say that she did accept at the point where she had completed the path of Acceptance and notified them of her claim.

Acceptance (when not in person): a general discussion
•    Contract law is based on old rules.
•    The paradigm for centuries was a contract of sale.
•    In the mind’s eye of trad. contract law, a contract takes place when people are interacting in person.
•    This became problematic once people began interacting by post.
•    In person, easy to say, “I accept,” or “I do not accept”, or to “hear” the silence (rejection)
•    However, by post, there are often complications along the way.  The letter of Offer could get lost on the way, or it may have arrived and been rejected by silence, or that the Offeree did write back, but it got lost on the way.
•    The Offeror, dealing at a distance, after having consigned a letter to the post and received no response, may be perplexed.  Likewise, the Offeree may be in a similar situation.
•    The silence on either end is perplexing.
•    The law has developed a rule that some say help, and some say hinder:
o    The Postal Rule, or The Postal Rule of Acceptance.
o    The ordinary rule of Acceptance is that it is not Acceptance until it is communicated (unless this has been waived by the Offeror)
o    Inter praesentes:  Present parties.
o    Communicated means communicated successfully!
o     The Postal Rule of Acceptance, where it applies, has Acceptance occur as soon as the letter of Acceptance is posted.
o    This applies even if the letter of Acceptance is miscarried enroute.
o    A clause in a contract can contravene this successfully.  The Offeror is the master of the Offer.  Ex:  “We don’t have an offer until your Acceptance reaches me.”
o    The Postal Rule of Acceptance puts the burden of interpreting silence, and therefore the risk of silence, on the Offeror.

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.

Assignment #1
There are some agreements that seem to have the outwards signals of a contract – offer, etc.  There are some agreements to look like contracts, but courts do not enforce.
For example, “I’ll make supper tonight if you make supper tomorrow night.”  There we have offer, acceptance and consideration.  However, if the person did not make supper the second night, and was sued, the court would likely find in favour of the defendant – not because either offer, acceptance of consideration were missing, but the court would be likely to say that the arrangement was not meant to be binding legally.  This is based mostly on triviality.
This means that the parties did not intend for it to be a legal compact.  Normally, this is no defence.  It is an absurd proposition in a business or commercial context.
Where it typically comes up is in “family arrangements”.
This is where our assignment #1 comes up.
Should these agreements be legally binding?  One had to research, not the law, but one’s mind as to what human factors are relevant in such a situation.
Ultimately, it is about the Offerer.  Did the Offerer intend for the arrangement to be legally binding?
Editors of case book bring to attention two of leading cases.  Be careful when using antiquated cases as a source for modern law.  May also look at some of the books on reserve.  Ultimately not a research essay.

Letter of comfort
•    A letter from a bank or a parent company, designed to ‘comfort’ another party (like a landlord or financial institution).  They are not promises.
•    If something went wrong, the issuer of the letter would argue that they did not have legal effect.

Government program
•    Might see this argument in a non-family arrangement also in a government program setting.
•    For instance, there might be a student employment program that specified in the ad certain criteria for eligibility.
o    If too many students applied, might be sued, construing the ad as an Offer.
•    The court would have to decide whether a reasonable reader would have understood it to be an offer.  Did the government intend this ad to affect its legal relationship with the reader?

Indefiniteness
•    One of the characteristics of an Offer is that it must be sufficiently detailed that, if accepted, the court must be able to enforce it.
•    This means that the contract must have sufficient detail to be enforced by the courts.
•    By getting into a taxi and giving a destination, to which the only response is to put the car in drive, one forms an enforceable contract.  This is all implicit.
•    Uncertainty does not mean that there weren’t enough words exchanged, but that words + context ≠ enforceable.
•    “I offer to sell you my car.”  “I accept.”  No good.  Price missing.  Impossible to enforce.

•    How does a court enforce a transaction?
o    What if one received, for instance, money for a car, but didn’t provide the car?
o    How does the court, in a subsequent suit, enforce this.
o    Judges for the plaintiff, but then what?
o    The court gives to the victorious plaintiff not the thing being fought over, but the value of it.  Translates the issue into an award of money.
o    This works great for things that have a market value, like a new car, but not for things that don’t – like broken legs.

•    Indefiniteness – Courts cannot enforce a contract against a defendant unless there is enough detail present to translate a broken ‘agreement’ into a monetary value.
•    Court does not demand that it have every single detail – can import reasonable terms.  Take the view that they can’t patch up glaring holes in the contract.
•    Notes on indefiniteness (488…).
o    Sometimes, parties deliberately write contracts that are indefinite on some point.  Consider that the point isn’t a critical one.  Parties usually contemplate only the happy performance of a contract.
o    Lawyers are often the ones who have to remind their clients to include clauses “in case something goes wrong.”
o    These points are hard to agree on.
o    Difficulty lies in the fact that these points could be the sticking point in forming a contract.  This is why these are often left out…
o    Takes a risk in assuming that nothing will go wrong – most ppl do, however, keep their promises.  This is what these parties count on.  Dodgy.

•    Another situation where parties often leave something out of a contract:
o    Suppose two parties want to enter into an agreement.
o    Suppose one wants to build a hydro-electric damn
o    This party might not want to spend the money to build without a guaranteed market – may form an agreement with a market that will run many years in the future.
o    The contract is about the purchase and sale of electricity.
•    How do we know what the price of electricity will be in the future??
o    How does one construct a contract that in binding today, but leaves blank a critical term?  (The price term)
o    Such contracts are fairly common.  Long-term procurement contracts with suppliers.
•    Could include a clause to re-negotiate at set terms in the future
•    Could include a way to change the prices to fair market value at set intervals.
o    Option 1 would likely lead to a non-enforceable contract.  Option 2 would likely be enforceable.
o    Enforceability of a promise is sticky.  Can negotiate in good faith, but not agree.
o    How does one know what agreement parties would have reached?  One cannot.  Therefore, cannot translate a decision into dollars.
o    Courts have taken the obvious route, and have been inhospitable to the idea of working in good faith.
o    Whereas if there is some sort of formula, such as to be applied to annually recalculate the fair price of, for instance, electricity.
o    Labour contracts often work this way: “Consumer price index, plus 1%.”

Foley v. Classique Coaches, Ltd.
•    Basically a land purchase agreement, with a tacked-on supplementary agreement.
•    Says that the bus company must buy all petrol from the gas station of Foley, in return for selling them the gas.
•    Stops buying gas from Foley – Foley sues.  Must prove that there was a contract and that it was broken.
•    Price was left out of the contract.  1.  The vendor shall sell to the company… petrol… at a price to be agreed by the parties in writing and from time to time.
•    Those words are often fatal – an agreement to agree.  Unenforceable.
•    How does the court know what the parties would have agreed had they agreed?  Cannot calculate the loss.
•    Agreements to agree simpliciter are unenforceable.  This is an important distinction.
•    A formula to calculate what they have not agreed upon, for instance, is enforceable.
•    Agreement to agree + Mechanism is enforceable.
•    Here, it is clause 8 – the arbitration clause.
•    The arbitrator is the person that the parties have chosen, so is not imposing anything on the parties.  They are agreed by the parties to be suitable to do this.
•    Sale of Goods Act has a provision for where the court may step in, but this is an exception.  Courts do not want to do this.  This exception is statute-authorized.  Note 4&5 on page 505.
•    In order for this to apply, the contract must be a silent contract.
•    Without the arbitration clause in clause 8, one could say that it involves the sale of petrol, which places it under the jurisdiction of Sale of Goods Act.  In this situation, it does not save it, because it applies only when the parties are silent about price – in this clause, on the contrary, there is an agreement to agree.
•    Repeat:  Sale of Goods Act applies only only only where the parties have been silent on the point of price (and typically only to one-off transactions).
•    Note 1:  “The pressure to enforce will be a function of the extent to which one party has relied on the agreement, the degree to which the parties are committed…”
o    If the contract was defective at the moment of creation, then it is defective, and nothing thereafter will redeem it.
o    So this note is somewhat inaccurate.
o    However, the reality is that if parties have worked successfully under a contract for some time (as in Foley), then it is relevant to the question of whether this was a workable, enforceable contract.  Makes the argument less plausible, but not impossible.
o    Judges tend to view the fact that ppl have worked successfully under a contract somewhat pragmatically.  Theoretically, if a contract was flawed at conception, then it is flawed inherently and irredeemably.

P 496 – importance of arbitrators
•    Arbitrators are often included in standard-form contracts.  Many insurance companies now include them in their contracts as standard.
o    This is often to keep out of the public eye events that would be seen as unfavorable, and to avoid the expense of lengthy court battles.
•    Parties can then later agree to skip arbitration.  Sometimes there are clauses to set up an “arbitration court of appeal” in case one party is unhappy with an arbitration.
•    Sometimes people involved in arbitration might feel somewhat under-valued law.
o    However, arbitrators are just as bound by the law as judges are.  They use the same law.
o    They write a legal decision.  They must give the decision based on the law.
o    Should not be second-class justice.

Next day:  Walford v. Miles; Empress Towers v. Bank of NS;

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