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.

Damages
•    When discussing non-pecuniary damages (pain and suffering; loss of state of mind; etc.) law tends to view these heads of loss with suspicion.
o    Though jurisprudence says we will compensate for these, it awards these damages somewhat… begrudgingly.
•    Addis v. Gramaphone Co. – page 99 held that an employee that had been wrongfull dismissed was entitled to compensation for the loss of contractual expectation, but not for any pain and suffering, mental distress, or damage to reputation.
•    The extent that we under-compensate victims, we are forcing victims to subsidize defendents.
o    Tends to stimulate economic activity
o    Similar:  In tort law, one is liable only if one is negligent.  Proving the act alone does not make one liable.
•    This in itself is a rule which undercompensates victims and subsidizes defendents.
•    “The people who are out there breaking legs are those who are out in the economy.”
•    Addis v. Gramophone shows the tendency of contract law whereby there are certain losses which may well be real, but for which we do not compensate.
•    There were at least two trad. exceptions:  Breach of promise of marriage; if a bank dishonoured a legitimate cheque.
o    In these two situations, invisible damages could be awarded.
•    In the last ¼ century, under the influence of Jarvis v. Swans Tours (Thanks to Lord Denning), things have begun to change.

Employment Contracts page 97
•    Indefinite duration – an employer has the right to terminate the employment of an employee either “for cause” or, having given “reasonable notice.”
•    2 kinds of implied terms:  officious bystander; business efficacy
o    implied-in-fact – this is different from what they editors are discussing here.  Here they are discussing implied-in-law.
o    Into contracts, the law implies certain terms, whether the parties would have considered them at the moment of formation or not.
•    The parties can explicitly preclude these implications.
o    Courts tend to, for instance, imply the IGF principle into contracts.

•    Vorvis v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia – page 99
o    A conscientous lawyer being tormented by his employer
o    Sought damages for mental distress (aggravated damages) – non-pecuniary – compensatory
o    Judges agreed that in a proper case, could get aggravated damages, and could get punitive damages.
•    Clear that the damages would be very limited.
o    Not the end of the line – just the beginning of the SCC jurisprudence on this issue.  Bottom line is that the possibility of damages for non-pecuniary loses in breach of contract cases was legitimized.

Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co. page 123
•    Page 128-129 – list of 10 factors /  general principles
•    Goes on to discuss in rel. to this particular case
•    Page 126 – against the americanization of our justice system
•    Tells lower courts how to approach damages
o    Upheld the $1-Million award…
o    Hinted that this was the limit of what the SCC would be willing to uphold
•    Binnie authorizes the Run-Away Jury (Grisham) approach in Canada.
o    Punitive damages must be proportionate to the means of the defendant if they are to serve their purpose.

Fidler v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada page 143
•    Disability insurance case
•    Turns into a piece of mind case
o    Should provide the assurance of knowing that if something catastrophic happens, one will be provided for.
o    It is a promise not only of payments, but piece-of-mind.
•    Takes aggravated damages into an new direction.
•    Make defendents compensate victims for ordinary injuries which would be expected to arise from a breach – if these are aggravated damages, then we would award accordingly…
•    Page 148 – distinguishes 2 types of aggravated damages:
o    True aggravated damages – arise from aggravating circumstances.  Not awarded under general principle of Hadley.  Rest on defamation, oppression, fraud, etc.
•    Have nothing to do with type of contract – could, in theory, be awarded for any breach of contract which occasioned aggravated mental suffering
o    Second – mental distress damages which do arise out of contractual breach
•    Are awarded under principles of Hadley v. Baxendale – independent of any aggravating circumstances and are based on parties’ expectations at the moment of contract formation.
•    Says that this is not actually aggravated damages, but simply expectations…
•    Here, Sun Life promised piece of mind to Fidler, and did not provide it
o    Failure to deliver the promised ‘happiness’
o    ‘Aggravated’, under these terms, is a more active phenomenon.
•    Courts now believe that there are such things are ‘injuries’ even if they are invisible.
o    Willing to compensate for these injuries
o    Willing to award punitive damages

Deglman v. Guaranty Trust – page 238
•    Page 240 – the nephew-aunt scenario
•    No one disputes that there was a contract, but didn’t satisfy the Statute of Frauds
o    Deglman loses on the contractual issue, but does not go away empty-handed
•    Page 240-241 – first case where SCC awarded restitutionary (damages?)
•    The acts done were persuent to the contract
•    Accordingly, embrace the propostion that if Deglman was not give something, the aunt (estate) would be rewarded unjustly.
o    The services were not give gratuitously.
•    ¶6 – “It would be inequitable to allow the promisor to keep both the land and the money and the other party to the bargain is entitled to recover what he has paid.”
o    Statute of Frauds doesn’t preclude from bringing a restitutionary claim
o    Not for contract; not for tort; not for trespass – it is to alledge that otherwise a defendant would be unjustly enriched.
•    Quantum meruit.
•    Normally, (F&P language) in a restutitonary scenario, a pl. has given a benefit to a def. (prepaid, for instance)…
o    The pl is minus the payment (say, -$100), and the def is plus the payment (+$100).
o    Court, enforcing its equitable power to police the defendant, can force the D to give back the measure of the benefit.
o    In pure restitutionary theory, to quanitfy what the Pl receives, you look at how the Def was enriched (not how much the pl paid).
o    In Quantum meruit, one asks how much the pl deserves – put a fair market value on what the pl supplied.
o    Could lead to the same conclusion – but may be cases in which it cost the pl more than the def was enriched.
•    Evaluated by a Quantum meruit procedure, would look at what the pl paid.  Pure restutionary, would look at how much the Def benefitted and award that to the pl.
•    Note 5 page 245 – example of the pl incurring much expense, but suing on restitutionary theory… read this note
o    The pl got nothing

For next day:  Do all cases on the rest of the syllabus to this point

Tilden
•    The P here could have read the contract, but did not
•    How does he win?  He does not win on the theory that he went to trial on, but another.
o    He wins on the court’s reasoning that (¶s 13 & 14) an essential part of the test is whether the other party entered into the contract on the belief that Mr. Clendenning had agreed to the contract.
o    If it obvious to one party that though the other is signing they are not assenting to the contract (because there are parts that they don’t know about), the party cannot invoke the rule from L’estrange.
o    Tilden cannot rely on the parts of the contract which it has no reason to believe Clendenning assented to.
o    Waddens alludes to the doctrine of mistake, though this is not a mistake
•    The judges decide to give judgment that defeats the business party, but tries to assure the business world that the decision is not a significant change.
•    ¶17 – which sections are Clendenning subject to?  Not subject to the clauses which the judges believe the consumer would find surprising.
o    Tilden relying on clauses under which it keeps the $2 deductible, but is not obliged to pay out a claim.
•    Bell calls this a clever decision that is very much still a part of the law.

Hunter Engineering v. Syncrude Canada pp. 871-888.
•    In the wake of Photo Production, there was no extra weight given to “fundamental breach” of a contract, as all breaches were treated equally.
•    If on a true construction, a clause covered an incident, then it covered the incident, period.
o    Court in PP, however, noted that they had a clear conscience because what might be the least fair cases had already been covered by legislation.
o    Only commercial cases at common law remained.
•    SCC in Hunter Engineering (1989) takes a considered look at this idea.
•    The decision in Hunter is a 2-2 decision.  There is no majority / minority decision on this point.
o    On the issue of the place of fundamental breach in the modern law, there is a split.
o    everyone typically identifies Dickson J’s decision as the majority, but this is not so.
•    The clauses here are not totally unreasonable.  The purchaser, however, wishes to evade them
•    argument that the breach here is of a fundamental character, and so the limitation of liability clauses do not apply…
•    2 judges here like Photo Production, and would incorporate the decision into Canadian law.
o    ¶17 – Dickson J. says that fundamental breach should be an issue of contract contraction, and that the court should not disturb the bargain that the parties have struck.  He and La Forest go with the true construction model.
•    True construction – simply means that if the clause in question, given various tests of interpretation, still covers (on a fair reading) what happened, then it does cover what happened, and the parties will be left with the contract that they made.
•    This is a business-business case, but Dickson and La Forest do not make their decision turn on this.  They do not distinguish.
•    The effect of this would be to abolish the doctrine of fundamental breach in Canada.
•    Get hints of something else:  ¶17 (last sentence) – ‘the courts should not disturb the bargain that the parties have struck, and I am inclined to replace the doctrine of fundamental breach with a rule that holds the parties to the terms of their agreement, provided the agreement is not unconscionable.’
o    ¶28 – unconscionability again.  “only where the contract is unconscionable, as might arise from situations of unequal bargaining power between the parties, should the courts interfere with agreements the parties have freely concluded.”
o    doctrine of unconscionability – judges can ignore things they don’t like.  Trad. gets a very narrow construction.  Is confined to the narrowest circumstances.  usually, only legit. terrain is seen as inequality bargaining power.
•    if the bargaining power was grossly lopsided, the contract might be struck down by the courts.
•    Wilson J. and L’Heureux-Dubé J.
o    presents more than Dickson, and in a less than coherent order.
o    Says that she agrees with Dickson that fundamental breach as invented by Denning in the Car Sales (?) case and promoted by him in subsequent cases, that it has its problems.
•    agrees that not all the problem clauses in contracts are exemption clauses, but that the doctrine of fundamental breach deals only with limit. of liability or exemption clauses.
•    agrees that not all exemption clauses are unfair, but that the doc. of fund. breach means that if there is a fundamental breach, the exemption clause disappears altogether.
•    So agrees that there are problems.  Goes too far one way, not far enough in another.  But does not think we should go so far as to abolish it.
o    ¶42-43 – goes to trouble of pointing out that while the HoL in Photo Production could reach its decision with a clear conscience because the consumer cases were protected by legis., points out that there is no such legislation in Canada.
•    Wilson qualifies this ¶43 that many of the provs. had already taken care of limitation of liability clauses (contracts fall under prov. jurisdiction)
•    But doesn’t think that this is a completely adequate solution.  Still sees a role for the courts to protect parties who have been victims of some fundamental breaches.
o    ¶43 – ‘in affirming the legitimate role for the courts’; ¶47 “policy matters”; ¶? “residual powers” for courts.
•    saying that courts have a legit. role in invoking its residual power in contracts.  May be cases where freedom of contracts has gone too far, and that there may be a role of the court (even outside the doctrine of unconscionability) to remake a contract.
•    Says that she does not agree with Lord Denning’s approach.  The Doc. of Fund. Breach that she is about to try to save is not as it was articulated by Denning.
o    Denning’s said that if you have a fund. breach (going to the root of the contract; deprives the violated party of the whole benefit of the contract), there is an automatic consequence.  A rule of law kicks in to specify this consequence – that the limitation of liability clause disappears, meaning that the contract breaker can no longer shield themselves behind it from liability.
o    ¶33 – sentence 2 – quite wrong.  “One held that there was a rule of law that a fundamental breach brought a contract to an end…” wrong.  The contract did not come to an end – the limitation of liability clause came to an end.  That is all.
•    Says that her articulation of the doctrine of fundamental breach would be more nuanced:
o    that the courts would still have to classify a breach as fundamental or not, but that it just leads the court to ask a second question:
•    Would allowing the breaching party that has committed the fund. breach, to shield itself, lead to a result that was unfair or unreasonable?
•    Whereas Denning, having once classified a breach as fundamental, would immediately remove the lim. of liability clause, Wilson would say that once this classification is made, the next question is then asked.
•    would not, then, be looking at the moment of formation, but instead the result of the contract – an unfair or unreasonable consequence for a victim of a breach.
o    Says that even if there was a fundamental breach here, there is nothing so unfair as to invoke the doctrine.
•    Makes a reply to Dickson and his flirting with the doctrine of unconscionability:
o    ¶47 “Where there is no inequality of bargaining power, the courts should, as a gen. rule, give effect to the bargain freely negotiated by the parties”
•    ¶48 “To dispense with the doctrine of fundamental breach and rely solely on the principle of unconscionability, as has been suggested by some commentators, would, in my view, require an extension of the principle of unconscionability beyond its traditional bounds of inequality of bargaining power.”
o    The doctrine of unconscionability has trad. not been a result-based analysis, but instead a contract formation-based analysis.
o    questions how the court could say that a validly formed contract was unconscionable…
•    so cannot be a subs. for the doctr. of fund. breach, UNLESS admit to changing the doctr. of unconscionability.
•    Says that even if she could do that, she wouldn’t, because she finds this doctrine even more vague than the doctr. of fundamental breach.

•    ¶52 – Courts over the past 50 years have flirted with the idea that exclusion of liability clauses are worse than limitation of liability clauses.  This is a distinction that is difficult to make.  Limitation of liab. clauses can be so far-reaching as to practically equate them to exclusion of liability clauses.  Wilson J. here points out the same thing.

Conclusion:
The doctrine of fund. breach took hold in Canada, but here we have 2 judges who would abolish it, and 2 who would save it, but prune it.  (5th judge here stayed out of it).
Editors of the case book (note 2, 3, & 6) give us three cases where (note 7 as well?) a good idea can be formed of how lower court judges have handled this 2-2 decision of the SCC.  In effect, the judges seem to be taking what Dickson and Wilson said and synthesized them?  Seized on “unconscionable” in Dickson’s and “unfair and unreasonable” in Wilson’s, and began treating them as the same thing.
Note 2, page 885 – equates the two – says the diff is “unlikely to be large”.
The SCC has touched on fundamental breach in a # of cases since 1989.  It does rather seem that fund. breach is alive and well in Canada – perhaps saved by Wilson J. & L’Heureux-Dubé, but ppl still do use Dickson’s word, “Unconscionability”.
Fundamental Breach:  Dead in England, still kicking in Canada.  Party on, Fundamental Breach.  Party on.

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
•    Result of Ralph Nader’s critiques of the auto industry in the U.S. in the 60s making their way to the legislatures by the late 70s.
•    does not apply to services, except if goods are sold at the same time.
•    2(3)This Act applies notwithstanding any agreement, notice, disclaimer, waiver, acknowledgement or other thing to the contrary.
o    Seems to say that the consumer cannot contract themselves out of the Act.
o    Do have the  Sale of Goods Act, but can contract oneself out its benefit (without even realizing it).

Read the rest of the sections of the Act.  New Syllabus on TWEN.  Meeting tomorrow – reading assignment for tomorrow by email.