Fact Patterns
Amanda arrived At LaRonde in Montréal, paid and received her non-refundable ticket. The front of the ticket included the price of the day-pass, the date, "LaRonde," a barcode, and a massive logo of Six Flags. Since the printer ink was on its last legs, the waiver was printed lightly and illegibly on the back. After entering the park, each ride included large signs with smaller text, repeating the waiver on the back of the ticket.
Unfortunately, Amanda got injured on the Goliath. Counsel for LaRonde pointed to the several signs stating the waiver of liability. Is LaRonde likely to succeed on this reasoning?
No, post-contract notice does not count.
"“By the time Mr. Apps arrived at the Terrain Park, he had paid for his non-refundable ticket, taken the lift up the mountain, and had begun snowboarding. It was far too late to give notice of what was in the waiver. That had to be done at or before the ticket booth.” (para 58/pg. 442). " (Apps v Grouse Mountain)
Compensation Principle
"And it is the general intention of the law that, in giving damages for breach of contract, the party complaining should so far as it can be done by money, be placed in the same position as he would have been in if the contract had been performed." (Wertheim)
[WON'T BE ON THE EXAM] Grant is planning on exercising his right to terminate Cole's contract of services; Cole is a landscaper hired to maintain the building's yards and flowerbeds. Lately, Grant noticed that Cole has been doing more work than necessary. Under the duty of honest performance, what is required from Grant?
The duty of honest performance means simply that parties must not lie or otherwise knowingly mislead each other about matters directly linked to the performance of the contract. This does not impose a duty of loyalty or of disclosure or require a party to forego advantages flowing from the contract; it is a simple requirement not to lie or mislead the other party about one’s contractual performance. (Bhasin)
What building on campus was almost the new law school building?
A) CRX
B) FSS
C) Desmarais
D) Brooks
B) FSS
This former pop superstar sought to end her conservatorship, which went on for 13 years.
Britney Spears
Liv and Ray have a contract for the sale of goods; pursuant to their agreement, that states "if there is any extra inventory prior to the delivery, Liv shall receive the extras at no additional cost." Liv decided to waive this condition since she had too much stock to sell. However, less than 24 hours prior to a delivery, she notifies Ray that she wants to make use of the benefit or she will not pay and cancel the contract. Although Ray had told her there was extra inventory, it was not included in her most recent delivery. Liv wants to cancel the contract.
Would Ray be successful at suing Liv for damages for cancelling the contract?
Yes, “It is open to a party to a contract to waive a condition which is inserted for his benefit. If at a later stage the sellers wished to avail themselves of the condition precedent, [...] if they had given reasonable notice to the [other party]. If they had done that and the [party] had failed to comply with the condition, the [party] would have been in default and the [other party] would have been entitled to cancel the contract without being subject to any claim by the buyer for damages.” (Panoustsos)
[WON'T BE ON THE EXAM] Post-contractual modification & Economic Duress
It is a well-established feature of the traditional doctrine of consideration that consideration must move from the promisee or, in other words, the promisee must suffer a detriment in return for the promise of the promisor. That something more provides the consideration necessary to enforce what otherwise would be a gratuitous and unenforceable promise. I am prepared to accept that there are valid policy reasons for refining the consideration doctrine to the extent that the law will recognize that a variation to an existing contract, unsupported by consideration, is enforceable if not procured under economic duress. (Nav Canada)
[WON'T BE ON THE EXAM] Abby and Cole signed a contract to formalize the details of their new tutoring partnership. They agreed on a 45/55 split of profits (favouring Abby) to reflect the division of labour. However, two years later, they realize that it would have been financially beneficial to split the profits 35/65 (favouring Cole) due to certain tax benefits. Both parties are on board with fixing their existing agreement.
Is a court likely to rectify their existing agreement? Why/Why not?
No, "Rectification aligns the instrument with what the parties agreed to do, and not what, with the benefit of hindsight, they should have agreed to do. Courts rectify instruments which do not correctly record agreements. Courts do not “rectify” agreements where their faithful recording in an instrument has led to an undesirable or otherwise expected outcome." (Canada (AG) v Fairmont Hotels Inc)
Paulette attended an estate sale and found a vintage, archival Dior autumn/winter 1998 dress. She immediately asked the estate sale agent if she knew whether the dress was original or a replica. To the best of her knowledge, the agent was under the impression that it was an original and tells Paulette, "It is an original! This dress is so sought after, you'd be crazy not to buy it!" Persuaded, Paulette signs an agreement for the purchase of the dress.
Later that night, excitedly shows it to her best friend and fashion enthusiast Elle Woods. Elle tells her that the dress is a fake because of the material is off.
Paulette immediately contacts the agent and wants to sue for damages.
Is she likely to succeed?
Yes: A plaintiff may sue for damages where the defendant has made an innocent representation, only if a collateral warranty or collateral contract exists between the two parties. In Sale of Good situations, buyer may seek to rescind in the passing of a reasonable time to see if the representations made by the seller were true. (Leaf International, Redican)
This pop singer diva sued her ex-husband for a $50,000,000 inconvenience fee after he called off their wedding, essentially wasting her time. She settled out of court for $5 million and got to keep the ring! Guess he wasn't as "obsessed" with her as she thought!
Mariah Carey
Amanda is a minor who entered into a sale of goods contract with Benny for her school lunch (necessaries) for the week of March 17-March 21 for $50. The value of the meals are $30. Amanda has not paid Benny the $50 and he chooses to sue her for the amount owing.
Will a court enforce the contract? Why or Why not? How much, if any, is owed to Benny?
Yes, contracts with minors are still valid if it is for necessaries, but the supplier will recover not the agreed price but the value ($30). (Rex v Rash)
[WON'T BE ON THE EXAM] General organization principle of good faith
The organizing principle of good faith exemplifies the notion that, in carrying out his or her own performance of the contract, a contracting party should have appropriate regard to the legitimate contractual interests of the contracting partner. It merely requires that a party not seek to undermine those interests in bad faith (Bhasin).
Pursuant to Brayden and Danna's agreement, Brayden gratuitously promises to assemble all of Danna's new furniture. He spent hours making sure he assembled each piece correctly. However, after only a few hours of use, each piece of furniture broke, causing thousands of dollars of damage to Danna's rental apartment. She would like to sue Brayden.
Through what areas of law, if any, can she recover? Why or why not?
She cannot recover through contract law nor tort.
Contract: "A promise given without consideration to perform a service cannot be enforced as a contract by the promisee."
Negligence: If the service is in fact performed and done negligently, the promisee can recover in an action in tort."
(Hedley Byrne & Co)
Ger's COR method is (subjectively) superior to the FIRAC method. What does COR stand for?
Conflict, Outcome, Reasoning
In 2014, A guy named Michael Fiore filed a lawsuit claiming that the a Miley Cyrus music video caused him emotional distress, as he was "emotionally crushed" by the song's lyrics. He sought millions in damages, arguing that the video was just too much for him to handle. Needless to say, the case was dismissed. What video was it?
Wrecking Ball
Noah is a pharmaceutical distributor, selling and delivering medications to third-parties (hospitals/pharmacies/clinics). His contract with MedCan requires him to deliver two crates of medication every Friday and includes a provision of an additional payment of $50 for every crate that is sold by MedCan. He knows that MedCan is acting illegally by mixing the medications with placebo pills and selling the extras on the black-market. He has an active interest in the crates being sold. One Friday, however, MedCan had not paid the invoice for the most recent shipment. Noah wants to sue MedCan for the amount owing.
Is he likely to succeed? Why or Why not?
Unlikely to succeed because his claim would be based on an illegal transaction.
Holman v Johnson: The seller, indeed, knows what the buyer is going to do with the goods, but he has no concern in the transaction itself. It is not a bargain to be paid in the case the vendee should succeed in landing the goods; but the interest of the vendor is totally at an end, and his contract complete by the delivery of goods at Dunkirk. To what dangerous extent would this go if it were held to be a crime.
Does Noah have a concern in the illegal transactions of MedCan? Is his interest at an end upon delivery?
Clark v Hagar (Quoted in Zimmerman): In every case, the question arises whether he can or cannot succeed in his action without relying upon the illegal transaction. If he cannot, the action fails; if he can, it prevails.
Doctrine of privity (Bonus +20 points for every exception given)
The doctrine of privity of contract, a fundamental principle of contract law, means that only parties directly involved in a contract can enforce its terms or be bound by its obligations; third parties, even if benefiting from the contract, generally have no rights or obligations under it.
Exceptions: Agency, Assignment, Trust, behalf of others, employers-employees (under certain circumstances), executors of wills
Lauren and Anuja signed an agreement for a wedding cake. Pursuant to their agreement, Anuja would pay $5,000 in 4 separate payments, at various stages of the cake-making process (designing, tasting, baking), with the final payment to be made on the day of the wedding, upon delivery. In the agreement, each payment is recognized as a deposit because of the amount of time and money spent on ingredients and baking; Lauren would not be able to take other clients and would at most break even reselling the cake because it is customized and not everyone's preference.
Anuja paid 3 of the payments but did not have the money to pay Lauren on the day of her wedding. Lauren kept the $$ from the previous payments and resold, as best she could, the wedding cake at a loss.
Can Anuja recover for the amount she paid? Is there a possibility of a remedy in equity?
No because (Stockloser)
Where there is a forfeiture clause or the money expressly paid as a deposit (which is equivalent to a forfeiture clause), then the buyer who is in default cannot recover the money at all. He may, however, have a remedy in equity, for, despite the express stipulation in the contract, equity can relieve the buyer from forfeiture of the money and order the seller to repay it on such terms as the court thinks fit.
What circumstances would give rise to equity? Two things are necessary:
The forfeiture clause must be of a penal nature, in this sense, that the sum forfeited must be out of all proportion to the damage; and secondly
It must be unconscionable for the seller to retain the money.
Meredith hired Mark to build two treehouses for her kids, agreeing him a lump sum of $7,500, which would cover labour and materials. He built the first treehouse, work valued at $4,300. However, he heard through the grape vine that Meredith had outstanding debts to her friends. He refused to build the second treehouse until Meredith paid him for the work he did on the first treehouse. Meredith refused, choosing to DIY build the treehouse herself.
Mark wants to sue Meredith for the work he completed. Is he likely to succeed?
Yes, although the law is that, where there is a contract to do work for a lump sum, until the work is completed, the price of it cannot be recovered, there is an exception where the plaintiff can show that there's evidence of a fresh contract to pay for the work already done. (Sumpter v Hedges)
"Unless the building owner does something from which a new contract can be inferred to pay for the work already done, the plaintiff in such a case as this cannot recover on a quantum meruit."
In 2011, Mariah Yeater filed a paternity suit against this teen pop sensation, claiming he was the father of her child, but she later dropped the suit. He responded with his own version of "Billie Jean" titled "Maria."
Justin Bieber
Elsa and Talia enter into a written agreement; pursuant to the agreement, Talia agrees to sell her frameworks to Elsa for $150. They realized later, however, that they never decided on the proper method of payment. Talia tells Elsa that she's not in any rush and is fine accepting 3 payments of $50, each week and Elsa agrees. After the first week, however, Talia realized she actually owed Paige money and is demanding the rest of the payment from Elsa, threatening to sue her for the rest of the money.
What may you suggest to Elsa and what should she know about this approach?
Parol evidence (Harwish):
Erskin: “By such a stipulation no term or provision of the writing is varied or in the slightest degree infringed upon; both agreements can well stand together; the writing provides for the performance of the contract, and the consideration to be paid for it, and the parol agreement merely adds something respecting security for the payment of the price to these terms.”
Heilbut: “Such collateral contracts [...] they must be proved strictly. Not only the terms of such contracts but the existence of an animus contrahendi [intent to contract] on the part of all parties must be clearly shewn.”
Signed documents
When a document containing contractual terms is signed, then, in the absence of fraud, or, I will add, misrepresentation, the party signing it is bound, and it is wholly immaterial whether he has read the document or not. (L’Estrange v Graucob).
Amy and Vincent are a married couple who recently bought a term life insurance policy, naming each other as the beneficiary. Years later, Amy died during her attempted robbery of a bank. Vincent had no idea of Amy's plans. He is facing issues, however, trying to claim the insurance proceeds because Amy died while committing a crime.
Is Vincent likely to succeed at claiming the insurance proceeds?
Yes, because "public policy does not apply to bar a claim by an innocent beneficiary named in an insurance policy merely because the insured dies while committing a crime." (Oldfield v Transamerica Life Insurance Co of Canada)
Geraldine passed her driver's exam on the first try despite not knowing how to:
A) Parallel park
B) Turn on her high beams
C) Reverse park
D) More than one of the above (most mention all correct ones for the point)
More than one of the above --> Parallel park and high beams
This Kardashian ex sued the famous family after their spin-off show was cancelled shortly after the couple split. The ex sued for millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages for defamation, intentional interference with contract, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage,”
Blac Chyna