Contract Law

Foakes v. Beer (missed last class – interviews)
•    Why doesn’t the ruling in this case come under pre-existing duty?
•    Why do we need a separate rationale?
o    We do not need the rule from Foakes v. Beer – equally analysable under pre-existing duty
o    Separate island of jurisprudence all to itself, very similar to pre-existing duty rule
o    Could be under Stilk v. Meryk
•    Is is a subset of a preexisting duty, but we treat it separately for historical reasons.

•    Why doesn’t the hypothetical situation whereby one promises to write off a $100 debt in exhange for $50 fall under the rule that we saw earlier (stilk v. merit)
o    S & M was a legal dispute
o    The answer is that the s & m type scenario was about a compromising legal dispute
o    Whereas, in our hypothetical situation, there is no legal dispute.  One is not claiming that one does not owe the money.  One is simply admitting that one cannot pay it.

Given the similarity between the Foakes v. Beer and Stott v. Merit Investment Corporation, would the way around exhibited in williams v. roffey brothers be gotten around the same was as in Stott v. Merit?
o    Williams v. Roffy brother scenario takes some of the sting out
o    Why is it not equally applicable to the Foakes v. beer scenario?
•    It would be.
•    The English courts have addressed this.  They have said that one cannot use a Williams approach to defang the approach of Foakes.
•    This is because Foakes is a decision of the house of lords, and it would take a decision of that same house to overturn it.
•    Further, the argument goes that if Williams got one out from under Foakes, there would be nothing left to Foakes.
•    Whereas, in Williams, all three judges said they were not overturning Stilk v. Merit.
•    Why won’t a Williams argument apply?  (Consideration can be found in practical benefit…)
o    The answer is because the courts have said that it won’t.
•    Williams v. Roffy Brothers says that a prac. benefit can be consideration
o    applies only if the parties already have a contract
o    though limited in this way, nevertheless, is a precedent of great interest.
o    The natural question is, “what can Canada do?  Will they follow?”
•    If Gilbert Steel were decided today, would it go another way?
•    Under Quicklaw, search “Roffey” and see what the cndn courts do when they cite Williams v. Roffey Brothers.
•    ***Look and see whether it is being followed in Canada.  This may be important for midterm.
•    Will it stand as a great precedent of our time, or will it be forgotten?
•    P. 309, para 1. – “The case not being one of a composition with a common debtor, agreed to, inter se, by several creditors. “
o    If the first creditor who gets judgment against a credit gets 100%, then the fifth creditor (for instance) may get nothing as there is nothing left.
o    Sometimes, creditors will agree amongst themselves that none of them will actually execute a judgment against the debtor.  They will take the entire assets of the debtor and divide them up.
o    Earl of Selborne says that this arrangment is binding, but cites it in a way that it would seem to be an exception to the Foakes v. Beer way, but does not mean it in this way.  In fact means that there is consideration in this arrangment.
•    This agreement between creditors is called a composition.
o    Note on page 310 para 3 – there is a point that the “chequeness” is not consideration unless it is a bargained-for chequeness.
•    Nothing is consideration unless it is treated as consideration – unless it is bargained for.  Read this over to clarify.
o    P 312 – contracts with a 3rd party.

Criteria to select promises worthy of legal enforcement
•    Promises given in return for something which the law is prepared to regard as consideration.
o    This is narrower than what ordinary people might view as consideration.
•    Promises under seal (will look at later).

•    Does our legal tradition enforce promises merely because the promisee has relied on them?
o    This is against theory, but may exist practically.
•    We now come to a series of cases where this appears to be the scenario.
o    What is going on will look like promise enforcement, but the question is whether it is really promise enforcement, or protecting resonable reliance.
•    Is it harm prevention as opposed to promise enforcement?
•    With promise enforcement, all the attention is on the promisor.
•    With harm prevention, all the attention is on the promisee.
o    The case that discovered the possibility that there might be something that strongly resembled considerationless promise enforcement was Central London Property Trust Ltd v High Trees House ltd.
•    Lord Denning, prior to becoming a Lord.  He is a Justice here – trial judge.
•    One of the few trial cases in our text.
•    Friendly parties – just want an answer, which they will be willing to accept.
•    In this case, one of the two parties (plaintiff) have become insolvent, and is in the hands of a receiver.  The receiver has a fiduciary duty to try to take in as much money as legally possible.
•    99-year leases are quite common in England.
•    The landlord sues for 2 things (which may be the same thing, 2 ways)
o    Full rent prospectively
o    Full rent retrospectively.
•    First thing we look for is consideration (to enforce the landlord’s promise to let them pay ½ rent).
o    The promissee did rely on this promise
o    Consideration:  The tenant did pay the ½ rent, but that is not consideration – that falls under pre-existing duty.
o    There is no seal on the changed contract.  No change vis-à-vis the change.  No consideration vis-à-vis the change.
o    Denning J. does something revolutionary while saying that he is not doing anything revolutionary.
•    Claims to be following jurisprudence.
•    He makes up something and attributes it to the widom of the past.
•    Estoppel – this is the leading case of estoppel.
•    What Denning J. is faced with is a situation where the promisor made a promise to the promisee, the promisee relied reasonably on the promise, and now the promisor wants to break the promise.
•    The landlord gave the tenant a representation of the future – we call this a promise
•    This case is about whether to enforce a promise.
•    Because it is a promise.  Does not fall under trad. Jurisprudence of estoppel.
•    Allows us to make some enforcement.
•    (para 1 on page 316) – “With regard to estoppel, the representation made in relation to reducing the rent was not a representation of an existing fact.  It was a representation, in effect, as to the future, namely, that payment of the rest would not be enforced at a full rate but only at a reduced rate.  Such a representation would not give rise to an estoppel, because, as was said… a representation as to the future must be embodied as a contract or be nothing.”
•    (Para 2) “There have been a series of decisions over the last fifty years which, although they are said to be cases of estoppel, are not really such.  They are cases in which a promise was made which was intended to create legal relations and which to the knowledge of the person making the promise, was going to be acted on by the person to whom it was made, and which was in fact so acted on.  In such cases the courts have said that the promise must be honoured…  As I have said they are not cases of estoppel in the strict sense.  They are really promises – promises inteded to be binding, intended to be acted on, and in fact acted on.”
•    “In each case the court held the promise to be binding on the party making it, even though under the old common law it might be difficult to find any consideration for it.”
•    Continues – is this promise enforcement, or is it something that looks like promise enforcement, but is not?
•    Is there a meaningful difference between ordering a defendant to keep their promise, and ordering a defendant to act consistently with their promise.
•    Para 3 & 5 address the question (which we would never have to address with consideration)
•    How Binding?
•    The tenant had the audacity to argue that the promise was for the entire 99-year lease.
o    Lord Denning says no.  Will enforce the promise to some extent, but not that extent.
o    Says that the promisor can take back their promise to this promise

Reset.
•    It may be that the promisor can take back their promise
•    Estoppel-based promise-enforcement differs.
•    Promisory-estopple, or equitable-estoppel.
o    A different category of estoppel.

Next class:  Down to D & C Builders v. Rees

On TWEN is last year’s midterm.  Address questions 2 & 3 by way of sample.

5 Slogans:  (find ‘em)

*The pl always sues in his/her capacity of promisee
*The consideration is that which the promisee must demonstrate to the court that he/she exchanged to the promisor for their promise
Must take this decision path initially to get one’s bearings in the actual case.
Identifying the promise and dispute will tell you who the parties are – will coincide.

Too often students do not know where to begin with a problem.  Must orient oneself as per above.

*A promise of consideration is as good as consideration for this purpose.

In the eyes of the law, for this purpose, the law is prepared to treat the promise of something as equivalent to consideration – which is why it can be that my promise to convey my car to you for $1000, and your mutual promise to pay me $1000 for title to my car, gives rise to a binding agreement.

*Consideration is always a bargained-for detriment to the plaintiff-promissee
•    Always; bargained-for; detriment
•    Bargained-for is not just any detriment that counts as consideration.
o    It must be a detriment that was part of the bargain.
o    Ex:  In Dalhousie, the buildings (though a detriment) were not bargained for.
•    Something for something – an arrangement.
•    Consideration is always a bargained-for detriment.
•    **”Always”:  will come back to this word in this statement.

*Past Consideration is no consideration.

P 264
*Consideration need not be adequate;
or, the law does not inquire into the adequacy of consideration.
•    But, law does look at the sufficiency of consideration.
•    By adequacy – we mean the equivalence of the exchange; the quantum; quantity
•    Ex:  Arguing that selling one’s $10,000 car to another person for $1000 – the court does not allow us to go back and examine the adequacy of the arrangement.
o    If one is prepared to part from one’s property for a given price, then the value is simply seen as subjective; as in the appetite of the contractor.
•    By sufficiency (quick and dirty distinction between the two), we mean the ‘substance’ as opposed to the quantity.
o    Comes up in a surprising number of cases.
o    Means the consideration must partake of the substance of things that the law is prepared to accept as consideration.
•    Obvious example is moral consideration.
•    Cannot enforce moral considerations.
•    Past consideration does not count as sufficient consideration either.
•    Means that for something to be considered consideration, it needs to be of the substance of things that the law is willing to look at as consideration.
•    Mere detriment is not sufficient consideration – only bargained-for detriment.
•    Non-bargained-for reliance on a promise does not count as sufficient reliance.
•    SO, the law does not look at the adequacy of the consideration, but does require that it be sufficient
o    Means that the law doesn’t care how much consideration is involved, as long as it is consideration.

Past Consideration is no consideration
o    Implies a reference to something that is present.
o    The ‘something’ that is present is the promise.

Eastwood v. Kenyon
o    The husband undoubtedly made the promise, but this is not enough.
o    What did Eastwood exchange to Kenyon?
o    The consideration was rendered to Sarah a long time before her husband made the promise (or likely even knew her).
o    Could simply say that consideration is always a bargained-for detriment, and there was none of that here.
o    Can also say here, more particularly, that past consideration is not consideration.

o    Eastwood v. Kenyon is the case where consideration ceases to be simply ‘a word’.  It is a watershed in giving ‘consideration’ its modern meaning.
o    Goes to having a technical meaning in the law.
o    Para 9, page 267 – Lampleigh v. Brathwait (1615) – “the leading case on the subject…”
o    Distinguishable from Eastwood and Kenya
o    In E. v. K., have 1) Eastwood’s spending, then 2) Kenya’s promise
•    (1) had already been done before (2) came along.
o    In L. v. B., there are 3 acts:
•    Facts:  braithwaite killed someone, and was sentenced to hang.  At the time, those who were sentenced to hang were in fact not hanged.  They were usually pardoned (either conditionally or unconditionally).  Braithwaite told Lampleigh to go to the King and lobby for a pardon.  This is Act (1).
•    Next sig thing that happens (2), is that Lampleigh does attempt to find the court, to lobby it.  It takes him awhile, but he does it – successfully.
•    (3) – Braithwaite promised Lampleigh compensation
•    In this case, the court said that braithwaite’s promise was enforceable.
•    Said that Lampleigh’s actions were consideration.
o    In Eastwood, the judge says that Lampleigh v. Brathwait was distinguishable from a past-consideration scenario.
o    Says that in L. v. B., the consideration was implicit in the original request.
o    (3) is implicit in (1).
o    P 267 – Hobart C.J. says that a mere voluntary courtesy will not have a consideration to uphold a promise.
o    If someone offers someone something as a courtesy for something already done, then the consideration is already in the past, and not-binding.
•    Ex: ‘b’ mows ‘a’s’ lawn.  ‘A’ offers ‘b’ $20 as compensation.
o    If the courtesy were moved at the request of the party who made the promise, then it is binding.  Then, it is not naked (nudem pactum) – but couples itself with the suit before…
o    This means that if, for example, ‘a’ asks ‘b’ to mow their lawn, ‘b’ mows the lawn, and then ‘a’ promises to pay $20 – the promise for $20 can be interpreted as implicit in the original request.
•    The coupling is through an implication.
•    It is implicit that one is not asking for a gratuitity.  This is, of course, much clearer in the realm of business as opposed to friends or neighbours.
o    [Aside:  Remember that juries determine questions of fact, judges determine questions of law.]

p 282.  Guiding Transaction Adjustments
o    a pre-existing legal relationship, that the parties wish to adjust.
o    How is this accomplished in a way that ‘sticks’?
o    Ex: ‘a’ promises ‘b’ to sell his car for $1000.  ‘B’ says yes.
o    ‘A’ regrets selling for too little, so ‘B’ agrees to up the price to $1200.
o    Often times, this would result in an amendment  – cross out $1000, write in $1200, and both parties initial.
o    Had a living contract, and decided to adjust it.
o    The question is whether this perfectly intuitive action is actually legal…
•    Does this actually result in a legal obligation to pay the $1200.
•    No.
•    This is very likely not legal.

Stilk v. Myrick [1809]
•    Napoleonic wars
•    Embargoes on Britain forced them to go far-afield for materials such as timbre.
o    In this case, there is a contract of hire for a vessell.
o    £5/month for the sailors.
o    2 sailors desert at Cronstadt (now Finland, then Russia).
o    The captain promised the other men that, were the places not filled, they would have the deserters’ wages split amongst them.
o    The places proved impossible to fill, and the remaining 9 crew worked the ship back to London from what is now Finland.
o    The captain, upon their return to London, would only pay the £5.
•    Garrow, for the masters of the ship, was one of the first famous lawyers – known for his appeals to juries
o    Garrow argues that if this sort of action were permitted, crews could extort captains to pay them more, or they would allow ships to sink during emergencies, etc.
o    Judges say that the deal is in fact unenforceable because the sailors gave the captain no consideration.
•    At this time, the answer to the question “Why can’t one sell oneself into slavery?” changed.
•    The trad answer was that it was against public policy.
•    Around this time, the answer changed to ‘beause there was no consideration’ – the property of the slave becomes the property of the master.
•    The law was becoming more theoretical.
o    The sailors who remained with the ship were already legally bound to do so.
o    Those who remained were bound by the terms of their original contract to do their utmost to bring the ship safely to its destination.
o    Therefore, the sailors were only promising to do their pre-existent legal duty – this does not make up new consideration for a new bargain.
o    A promise to do that which is already one’s legal duty is not sufficient to form consideration.

Gilbert Steel Ltd. v. University Construction Ltd.
o    The promise being sued on is the promise to pay an increased rate for the steel beams.
o    What consideration did Gilbert Steel give to University Construction Ltd. in exchange for this promise?
o    G.S. alleged that they agreed to give a good price on the second building in exchange for this agreement to pay an increased rate now.
•    2 problems:  i) too vague;  ii) doubt that it was agreed up (even if it was mentioned)
•    Does not work as consideration
o    The delivery of the steel is the obvious consideration.
•    Why is it not?
•    They were already obliged to provide this steel, as part of the original agreement.
•    There is not detriment here.
•    This is why they switched to the “good price” arguument.
o    Pl.’s lawyer argued that the consideration of the oral contract was the mutual abandonment of the prior agreement.
•    Variation scenario – does not work unless one has a mini-contract to change an already existing contract, which in itself requires consideration.
•    If they had decided to call the whole thing off, leaving them (at least for a millisecond) contractless, and entered into a new contract, then that would be binding.
•    Why is it binding to agree to call a contract off?
•    Each side is sustaining the bargained-for detriment of releasing the other side from their obligation.
•    Releasing another from an obligation is a detriment.  Here it is also a bargained-for detriment.
•    It is binding.
•    “Recision + new contract” analysis – this would work.
•    “variation” will never work, unless it is that mini-contract to vary.
o    Recision + new contract is the argument that Mr. Morphy makes here.
•    Wilson J.A. says that this is perfectly legitimate, but that there is no evidence to support the idea that this is what the parties believed they were doing.
•    How does one know whether a particular action is variation or recision?
•    very difficult.
o    This is why the correcting-and-initialing is likely not legal.
o    The editors of our text portray this case as one of the worst decisions ever made.
o    The article on page 297 is by one of the editors – Barry J. Reiter.

Williams v. Roffey Bros and Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd.
o    Very similar case
o    Another contract case.
o    Another case where the project was half-finished.  Promised more to finish the project – how could this be binding?
o    Very rare in English C.A. for all three judges to write (as in Canada).
o    In this case, all three write.
o    Ever rarer for all three to write when they agree – they do in this case.
o    This is something different about this case…
o    Agree that this is enforceable, but are obviously so uncomfortable with enforcing it that they take a stab at explaining it.
o    Each of the three say that they are not overturning Stilk v. Myrick.
o    Say that it still stands for something.
o    Facts:  Roffey Bros have a contract with the municipality whereby they need to have the repairs completed by a certain date.
o    The pl. was a carpenter.  Def. was supposed to make progress payments to the plaintiff.
o    By april 9 1986, Pl. had completed the work on the roof, and first repairs to all 17 flats, and the second repairs on 9 flats.
•    Defendants had made interim payments of £16,200
o    By end of March, pl had run out of money
•    Roffey Bros. approach them and offer more money
•    Williams still went insolvent – had the audacity to sue Roffey Bros.
•    The fault was of Williams for putting in an unrealistic bid.
•    Had Roffey bros. over a barrel, due to the time restrictions on the other contract.
•    Under orthodox analysis, the plaintiffs already had a duty to finish the flats.
•    By promising again to do so for more money, they have insufficient consideration.
o    Where is the consideration that the judges find?
o    What the court has always required is that the pl. promisee exhange a legal detriment to the promiser.
o    In Hamer v. Sidway, in the real world, the kid was benefitting from not smoking, drinking, gambling but in the eyes of the law, giving up ones rights to do something is a detriment.
o    This case acknowledges the diff between a practical benefit and a legal benefit.
o     A practical benefit is not one that the law would normally recognize
o    at the end of this case, the practical benefit turns out to be the legal benefit.

Para 15 – page 303
o    Judge says that Roffy Bros was in fact deriving practical benefits from Williams completing the project at the new price.
o    Keeping Williams on the job should have been to the Roffy Bros benefit, as they did not have to try to find new contractors if that were even possible.
o    Says that the underpining of the rule in Stilk v. Myrick was to save masters from economic duress.
o    P 305 – para 22
o    Propositions
o    The obvious objection to these propositions is that consideration is a bargained-for  detriment
•    What new detriment did Williams sustain?  None.  They are already bound.
•    This judge ignores this.  Says that it is enough that it is a practical benefit to the promisor.
•    Bell thinks the judge is responsible for an enormously significant improvement in the law that is not based on sound theory.
o    Judge #2 – Russell L.J.
o    Says that it does not overturn stilk and myrick.
•    Sure…
o    S v M is not about a promised gift, despite what he says.
o    What he says it stands for bears no relation to what was in the case.  This is a trick.  It is a manipulation of the common law.
o    Judge #3 – Purchas L.J.”
o    Also says not overturning Stilk v. Myrick
•    Takes a different approach – changes the def’n of consideration away from detriment
•    Calls this the modern approach (para 33)
•    Note “Economic Duress”

While this case may be a good decision, it cannot possible be commensurate with contract theory.

For Friday:  finish cases on this page of syllabus

Agreements to agree cannot be enforced without a mechanism.
Silence (something left out of a contract) is not as bad as an agreement to agree.  Blanks can be filled-in in various ways

Walford v. Miles
•    Addresses a question – whether an agreement to negotiate is enforceable
•    Is there such a thing as an enforceable agreement to negotiate?
•    An oral agreement is no less an agreement than a written one.
•    This case raises the collateral and no-less interesting question – what if an agreement is an agreement to negotiate in good faith (IGF)?
o    Is this distinguishable from an agreement to agree?
•    Express agreement to negotiate, but the pl says that there was an implicit agreement to negotiate IGF.
o    Good faith comes up in two contexts:
•    1) Performance of an already-existing contract – law will normally say that the business efficacy test, or the bystander test will lead to the conclusion that the parties did impliedly promise one another to fulfill duties of a contract IGF.
•    2)  Negotiation in good faith towards having a contract in the first place – the law balks at this.  Says that there is no source of this legal duty
•    In law, duties arise from something – legislation, agreements
•    Cannot locate the origin of a duty to negotiate in good faith.
•    However, what if someone agrees to negotiate IGF?
•    The law does not hold us to any promise to anyone unless that promise is contained within a contract (contract - something the law is prepared to recognize).
•    What is the origin of a duty to negotiate in good faith?
o    The House of Lords declines to impose such a duty
•    P 508 – an agreement to negotiate is no more enforceable than an agreement to agree – too uncertain.
•    Doesn’t help to add an implied promise to negotiate IGF.
•    Cannot translate a promise into an award of money, because do not know what they would have agreed, had they agreed.
•    Contract law presumes that ppl are not altruistic.
•    Presumes that ppl act as egoists – that we are selfish.  Dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest realm.
•    Presumes that the realm of contracts and the economy is one of warfare.  All’s fair (except lying).
•    P 507 (bottom) – American Jurisprudence tries hard to find an enforceable duty to negotiate in good faith.  Does not sway Lord Ackner.
o    Best endeavors – the law does recognize an obligation (when promised) to use best endeavors.
•    “I want to buy your land to build my shopping mall, but if I can’t get your land re-zoned, then I do not want to buy your land.”  The purchaser will typically enter into an agreement.  The vendor will promise the potential buying that it will use its best endeavors to carry out an application to re-zone the land.  Then, if the vendor of the land does not use best endeavors to procure rezoning
•    Courts, though will not judge whether someone has acted IGF, does involve itself in whether someone has used best endeavors – this is likely because this involves actual actions instead of intentions.
•    This sometimes looks like IGF, but is in fact distinguishable.
•    The parties have a contract, which calls on one of them to do something using best endeavors.
•    P 507 para 2 – “Apart from the absence of any term as to the duration of the collateral agreement, it contained no provision for the respondents to determine the negotiations, albeit that such a provision was essential.”
o    Often law preserves the original meaning of an English word, which in general parlance has changed its meaning.  This can be confusing.
o    “Several” – means in general parlance that there are 3 or more
•    In law, it retains its original meaning of individual – “Several states of the United States” means the individual states.
o    In this paragraph, “Determine” is used in this way.  Here, it means to terminate.

Empress Towers Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia
•    Commercial lease, with renewal clause
o    Renewal clause is common for commercial leases, for stability of presence
o    Leases do, however, want to re-negotiate periodically, to adjust rent for inflation, rising property values, etc.
o    How to balance stability with this idea.
o    In this lease, allowed to do this every five years.
•    Whoever framed this final renewal left out a saving grace of the first renewal – the mechanism to determine the negotiation – an arbitrator.
•    If the words “as mutually agreed between the Landlord and the Tenant” were not in the agreement, the preceding words could be used as a mechanism to determine fair rent.  Could have called experts – likely realtors – to determine what the fair rent was in that neighborhood.
•    But, someone thought it would “sound nicer” to mention an agreement between the parties.  This was fatal.  Takes away all objectivity.  Parties do not typically agree straight-off.
•    Looks like an agreement to agree…
o    Is this in fact what the judges are saying?
o    Look at the first sentence of the case.
o    Distinguishable from Walford v. Miles.
o    An ordinary remedy at the end of a civil case is a legal remedy – money; damages
•    Here, Empress Towers seeking a writ of possession (a writ issued to recover the possession of land - Black’s)
•    Equitable remedy
•    It is discretionary – no one has a right to an equitable remedy – one has a claim.  Equity is not in the realm of rights.
•    Courts will deny an equitable remedy if one has misconducted oneself.
•    Must go to court with clean hands
•    Here, the landlord ultimately cannot have the writ of possession because it has not bargained towards the renewal terms IGF, so not with clean hands.
•    Exercises their discretion in denying the writ of possession.
•    Saying that the landlord failed to negotiate in good faith is not the same as saying that they had a duty to do so.

Canada Square Corp. Ltd.v. Versafood Services Ltd.
•    Here the problem is mostly that of things left out of a contract.
•    Interesting from the p.o.v. of a potential draftsperson.
o    A lawyer’s primary role is not to solve problems, but to prevent them.
•    Certain parts of the desired contract here were too uncertain to determine at that point.
o    The answer is to put in a formula to render the uncertain aspects certain.
o    If a formula is incongruous with the factors left to be determined, then an arbitration clause effectively does the the same thing.
•    Significant things left out of this agreement.
o    Did not specify what area was meant to be leased
o    When the lease was to commence
o    When rent due
•    Versafoods tried to use these as an excuse to get out of the contract.  Said the contract was too uncertain.
o    The real issue is not a legal issue.
•    When judge turns to a US authority (in contracts) one knows that the judge is looking for a slightly unorthodox precedent which will allow the judge to do something that our more conservative Canadian jurisprudence does not allow.
o    Says that the U.S. case law distinguishes between the primary issues of a contract, and subsidiary issues.
o    Says that while the parties have to have agreed up on the fundamental terms (which courts cannot fill in) a lesser issue on which there is silence can (with some hesitation) be filled in by courts.
•    Courts can infer that the parties intended a reasonable term if it is a subsidiary term.
•    Normally, at this point, the court stops and tells the parties they have to agree on something, which the court then endorses.
o    In paragraph 4, the California court refers to these ‘blanks’ as “minor”

*The winners in these cases are never fully compensated – the costs that are paid to the lawyers are never fully reimbursed.  This is likely an discouragement of litigation.

L.C.D.H. Audio Visual Ltd. v. I.S.T.S. Verbatim Ltd.

o    The would-be subcontractor sued and lost.
o    Again refers to the business world as Darwinian and dog-eat-dog

For next day, read down to end of first section of new syllabus.
Consideration section.

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

Writing
•    Contracts do not have to be either written or oral
o    They can be party written or party oral.
•    All common law jurisdictions have adopted some form of the Statute of Frauds
•    To what does the statute of Frauds apply?
o    What contracts are caught by the contracts?
o    What contracts are within the statute?
o    Chiefly 2 types in ordinary practice that are caught:
•    Contracts of guarantee (or suretyship)
•    When one is a guarantee or surety, one is making oneself answerable for someone else’s legal debts or wrongs
•    One says that even thought one is not the tortfeasor, one will pay the victim for the tortfeasor’s actions
•    The law looks at this as rare, and therefore wants to be very sure that someone did mean to do this – wants to see it in writing.
•    Explains why contracts of guarantee have to comply with the statute of frauds.
•    Banks take the most guarantees – want everything in writing anway.
•    Contracts in issue of land
•    Contracts in sale of fee simple have to be in writing, obviously enough
•    The statute is not confined to fee simple
•    It is confined to interest in land
o    Profits a prendre, etc.
•    Not validly conveyed unless it complies with the statute.
•    Lawyers get sued a lot because they forget that an option to obtain land is an interest.
o    If not done in writing, does not comply with statute of frauds.
•    Keep in mind that statute of frauds applies not only to FS and life estates (and fee tail), but also to anything that is an interest in land, including the option.

•    In most provinces, there is another category – “contracts not to be performed within a year.”
o    The jurisprudence is an exotic one
o    The drift is that if the contract could possibly be performed within a year, then does not apply.
o    Only contracts that could not possibly be performed within a year.

•    If a contract must comply with the Statute of Frauds (page 233)
o    “No action shall be brought…”
•    Note:  Unless the contract is in writing
•    Does not mean that the whole contract in question has to be in writing, only that enough of it has to be in writing.
•    Likewise, signed does not mean “signed” necessarily.  Can be printed, pre-printed on a letterhead – the court might well say that this is enough.
o    Could even be on a cheque – even if in the memo “re: purchase of land” might be enough to satisfy the memorandum in writing requirement
•    Law requires that certain narrow categores are satisfied, but once they are, makes them easy.
•    Quite easy on finding that the requirement has been met, in order to not simply fail valid contracts on technicalities.
o    Make the satisfaction extremely elastic.

•    “No action shall be brought” are the most elastic words of the statute.
o    Can’t sue on such a contract
o    Says plaintiffs cannot sue on such a contract
o    Doesn’t say, “there isn’t such a contract”
o    Logically, implies that the contract is there, but cannot be invoked affirmatively.
o    If somehow a defendant could defend him or herself based on this contract…
•    For example, to explain why they built their castle on Blackacre
•    The defendant could invoke the existence of the contract
o    Might be able to raise an estoppel based on such an agreement, but cannot sue on it.  Another example of a shield but not a sword.

•    Original Statute of Frauds said that contracts above a certain value had to be in writing.
o    Was taken out of the SoF and put into Sale of Goods Act
o    Was a nuisance, because the value probably hadn’t changed since 17th century.
o    The English figure was originally £10 – was, in the 17th century, a staggering amount.
o    Was translated, like many, many English statutes, into $40CA.
o    Most provinces (like NB) have repealed it.
•    Ontario only in 1994.

First propostion:      Few have to be in writing
Second proposition:     Even if yours does, courts are liberal in interpretation.
Remember that contracts which have to comply with the statute that fails with the statue, does not fail as a contract, but just means that pl.’s cannot sue.

Doctrine of Hard Performance
•    A judge-created exception
•    Even though a contract may be caught by the statute, and non-compliance has happened, still, if one falls within an exception, the court will say that you did comply
•    The doctrine of hard performance
•    If can show that the contract has been performed in part by the time of a law suit, then will not be out of luck.
•    Creates a category of contract that otherwise would fail on a technicality, that do not fail on a technicality

Doctrine of hard performance – says that if the plaintiff can show that the alleged contract was partly performed so that it cannot be explained what the parties did except to say that they did it under contract, then the court will use what was done as existence of that contract.

Page 238 – example

Deglman v. Guaranty Trust Co. of Canada and Constantineau [1954]
•    The aunt thought that she promised to give her nephew the house in exchange for his little services.
•    He did do the services – years later, she died, but the will did not note that the house should be left to him
•    He sued the estate
•    The court noted that even though she thought she was giving him the house, she was in fact entering into a contract with him
o    His consideration was the services rendered.
o    A contract made within a lifetime take precedence over a will.
•    Page 239, the court turns to the doctrine of hard performance.
•    SCC says no – in order for an action to count as hard performance, must be uniquely referable to the existence of that alleged contract.
o    must have an unequivocal character.
o    Only way to account for the behaviour must be to resort to the existence of a contract.
o    Says the nephews actions do not constitute this.

•    This case emphasises that the doctrine of hard performance is interpreted quite narrowly.
•    Page 240, send him away with the consolation prize of $3000 (a great sum at the time)
o    We will come back to this in January to look at remedies.

•    The notes after the case show that English courts have moved away from the idea that the acts must be unequivolcally attributable to the existence of a contract.
o    Page 241-242 Steadman v. Steadman case.
o    Say that we must interpret on the balance of probabilities.
o    Yes, must be referable unequivocally, but we judge this on the balance of probabilities.
•    This considerably lowers the barrior to finding hard performance.
•    Bottom of page 242-243-244
o    Loosening of hard performance in Canada?
o    Editors imply that the Canadian courts will follow the English courts, but haven’t done so yet.
•    Even if a contract is caught by the statute, even if one hasn’t literally caught by the statute, then the doctrine of hard performance still gives hope.
o    Oral evidence is admissable to explain what the contract was, once courts have accepted the doctrin of hard performance as applicable.

Third Parties – Privity

Contract between A & B
A promises B the title to car for $1000
B promises A $1000 for title to car
•    A does convey to B the title to the car
•    B has not paid A $1000
•    A meets B to discuss
•    C is a bystander.  Decides on his own to sue B as a promise-breaker to force him to keep his promise.  May even establish a foundation for the suing of promise-breakers.
o    C v. B
•    Will not win.  C is not the promissee.
•    A contract is a private arrangement between [A & B]
•    Each has assumed obligations voluntarily
•    C is not in privy to the contract.
•    C did not give consideration.
•    Cannot enforce any promise against any promisor without consideration

A promises that when B dies, will pay a benefit to C.
B promises to A to pay premiums during his lifetime.
•    B dies
•    A does not pay the benefit to C (the beneficiary)
o    C v. A
•    Promise broken
•    2 objections:
•    C is not the promissee
•    C did not give consideration

•    The common law treats perfect strangers and intermeddlers (as in example 1) the same as beneficiaries.

What if one person makes travel arrangments for a group, and one of that group is the victim of a breach of contract, from the carrier, for instance.
•    Only a person who is party to a contract can sue – Dunlop Tyre
o    Page 378-379 – HoL invited to overturn Dunlop Tyre
•    Lord Denning sitting at this time
•    Would have relaxed the doctrin of privy to allow the intended beneficiary to sue – minority
•    Answered by Viscount Simonds
•    “For to me heterodoxy, or as some might say, heresy, is not the more attractive because it is dignified by the name of reform.  Nor will I easily be led by an undiscerning zeal for some abstrat kind of justice to ignore our first duty, which is to administer justice according to law, the law which is established for us by Act of Parliament of the binding authority of precedent.”

Free Agent
Must understand 3 analyses.
Not really exceptions to privity problem
Mean, in fact, that if they are true, there is no privity problem.
•    1)  Agency – if in a contract between A & B, it turns out that A was acting for someone else (for example, a corporation)
o    principal
o    C is the corp.
o    In fact, C was always a party to the contract.  It was never an A/B contract.  It is a C/B contract.
•    2)

For next class, read notes page 381
Read case page 384
Read London Drugs page 385