Contract Law

Our first line of defence in this course (on reserve):
•    Waddems: Contract Law in Canada
•    Cheshire and Fifoot – designed for students and practitioners.  Authoritative.
•    Attyah – Introduction to the Law of Contract.  This one is designed for students, but is at times advanced (bold, unorthodox).
o    1x/week, should be reading material on reserve.  Pick one of the cases we are doing in class, then look it up (index) in one of these books.

Electronic Communication/Transactions
http://www.gnb.ca/0062/acts/acts/e-05-5.htm
•    In most provinces now, there is some for of an Electronic Transactions Act.
•    Uniform Law Conference of Canada – contract law in Canada is a matter of property and civil rights – provincial responsibility
o    Can be different in each province – this can be odious not only for citizens, but for corporations.
o    Indirectly in Canada, we have tried to do what the Constitution doesn’t (though does mention) – the Uniform Law Conference of Canada (estb’d ~1914).  Takes the basic statutes from provinces (usually based on English statute), and tries to eliminate their differences as much as possible.  For areas of law that need new statutes, the ULCC drafts a new statute, which provinces can voluntarily adopt (either it, or a close approximation).
o    The NB Electronic Transactions Act is the result of one of these conferences.
•    NB’s ver is a mild version.
•    It is wholly permissive and facilitating.
•    Doesn’t require the use of electronic signature or anything of the like.
•    Facilitates:  As long as one intends something to be their signature, then it counts as a signature.
•    Has a provision for an electronic equivalent of registered mail.

Time of sending and receipt
16(1)Unless the sender and the addressee agree otherwise, electronic information is sent
(a)when it enters an information system outside the control of the sender, or
(b)if the sender and the addressee are in the same information system, when the sender takes the appropriate steps to make the information accessible to the addressee.
16(2)Electronic information is presumed to be received
(a)when it enters an information system designated or used by the addressee for the purpose of receiving information of the type sent and it is capable of being retrieved and processed by the addressee, or
(b)if the information enters some other information system and it is capable of being retrieved and processed by the addressee, when the addressee becomes aware that the information is in that other system.
16(3)Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as determining the place from which electronic information is sent nor the place at which it is received.

•    Sending and receiving is covered, and important.
•    This section covers time.
•    Note the use of the word “presumption” in 16(2).
o    Presumptions are rebuttable.
•    16(3) negates any link between the “when” and ther
•     “where”.  This would otherwise be very pertinent.
o    The significance of this can likely be ascertained from looking at the Eastern Power case.
•    Ordinary rules of contract law mean that wherever one opens one’s email could be where the contract is made (ex:  Sitting on a stopover in Hong Kong, whence neither party is from [is that a redundent phrase?])
•    To the extent that courts have given hints, they will use the ordinary rules of offer and acceptance.

“Firm” Offers
•    An offer which is expressed by the offerer to be open for a specified time.
o    All offers are open for some period of time – they have an expiry date.
•    A “firm” offer, the expiry date has been expressed.
•    “I offer to sell you my car for $1000.  This offer is open until 9am on Friday morning to accept.”
•    Basically saying, ‘I will not revoke it until 9am on Friday.’
•    Conveys to offeree that the offer does not have to be accepted right away – can take until the firmly specified time.
•    But (disillusioning moment) firm offers are not worth the paper that they may or may not be written on.
•    The offerer is not bound by this condition.
o    “Firm” offers are not firm at all.  End up being a trap for the offeree.
o    Even though the offer has been phrased that way, can be revoked at any time.
•    The key here is the word “revoke”.  It does not mean simply, “I’ve changed my mind.”
o    It involves communicating the ‘change of mind’ – revocation, like acceptance, is not revocation until communicated.
o    To prevent the other party from Accepting and forming a contract, must communicate the revocation before they communicate their Acceptance.
•    Why is this promise to keep the offer open not binding?
o    Lack of consideration – there is nothing being offered to keep the deal open.  [Bilateral v. unilateral?  P448 – “an offer in the unilateral sense can be revoked up to the last moment before complete performance”]
o    “The law does bind us to our word.”
o    In fact, we are not bound by any promise we make unless that is inside a contract.
•    There can be a contract to keep an offer open.
o    There must be consideration.  In other words, one can buy the right to, for instance, buy land.
o    This “buying” the right to accept or reject is called an Option.
o    An Option is a Firm Offer.  It is irrevocable.
o    The Offeree has paid the Offerer to keep the offer open for a specified period.

Unilateral v. Bilateral
Bilateral
•    Generality of offers is what the law calls bilateral offers or bilateral contracts.
•    A bilateral offer is one which, if accepted, gives rise to a bilateral contract.
•    So phrased so as to be open to verbal or promissory acceptance.
•    The offer must be phrased to be open to Acceptance (verbally)
Unilateral
•    “I offer you £100 to walk to York.”
o    This type of offer is so phrased that it is not susceptible to verbal acceptance – only by doing something.
o    It calls on the offeree to do something to accept – must be completed to form an acceptance.
o    In order to get $100 to find a lost cat, the cat must be found to constitute acceptance.
•    So phrased that it can be accepted only by doing some action.
•    Only when the offeree has completed the “thing” does the Acceptance occur.
•    This something, when done, constitutes Acceptance.
•    Often referred to as “if” Offers.
•    Either literally or analytically, they begin with an “if”.

What if this idea is filtered through the idea of revocability?
•    Unless accepted, an offer is just a promise.
•    “£100 to walk to York”
o    If this is Accepted by walking to York, then unless one has reached York (even 99% the way there), the offer can be revoked.
o    The law does not enforce promises.

Dawson v. Helicopter Exploration
•    Justice Rand is considered the greatest Jurist in the first half of the 20th-century.
o    “The Rand Formula” –
o    Rand worked to settle the boundary between Israel and its neighbours.
o    Son of a railway worker from Moncton.  Grew up poor.  Went to harvard, became lawyer, AG of NB.
o    Intercolonial in Moncton – bankrupted railways – became CN and moved to Montreal.
o    Rand became head of CN and followed to Montreal
o    Turned down SCC once, but did accept eventually.
o    Militant agnostic.
o    Served on SCC for about 15 years – short at the time. (44-’59)
o    Went off in 1959 to found law school at UWO.
o    None in ON are very old (law schools)
o    Taught at UNB.  Long-time selector of Beaverbrook scholarships.  Taught at law school here.
o    Writing style indicative of Harvard education.

Dawson
•    Cannot sue unless there is a contract
•    Company held that there was no acceptance.
•    Dawson did not go with them to find the claim.
•    Rand says that it is beyond doubt that it is not unilateral agreement – it is a bilateral offer, subject to promissory agreement.
o    This makes it a contract – enforceable.
o    It was the defendant’s fault that the “if” was not completed.
o    The “Acceptance” required complimentary action on the part of both parties.
o    [I see the reasoning here this way (it escapes Bell, he says).  If I say, “Bob, I’ll give you $10,000 to walk to Moncton by 5:00 tomorrow evening with me on your back.  If at 4:45 the next day, Bob is about to cross into Moncton, after having walked the entire way. I jump off and break Bob’s legs with a baseball bat.  Bob is put into an ambulance and brought to a Moncton Hospital..  In the course of the Criminal proceedings against me, could Bob not also sue me for the $10,000 “owed” to him under our alleged contract?]

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.

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