Canadian Consolidated Rubber Co. v. T. Pringle & Son, Ltd., and Foundation Co. Ltd.

Canadian Consolidated Rubber Co. v. T. Pringle & Son, Ltd., and Foundation Co. Ltd.

Article 1688 C.C. imports an implied ten-year warranty of stability; the builder is not exonerated by architect approval or omission to test soil; however, where the failure results from a departure in the use or operation from the design, the warranty does not apply; onus lies on the builder to prove any exception. Applying the facts, failure was due to departure from the designed mode of operation, so respondents were not liable.

Citation
[1930] SCR 477
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Canadian Consolidated Rubber Co.; Defendant/respondent: T. Pringle & Son, Limited; Defendant/respondent: The Foundation Company, Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 February 1930
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King’s Bench, Province of Quebec
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Architect/builder Implied Warranty, Article 1688 C.c., Onus of Proof, Vices Du Sol (ground Defects), Operation Vs Design Departure
Source Language
English
Professional Law Construction Law Contract Civil Liability Quebec Civil Code Interpretation Architect/builder Implied Warranty Article 1688 C.c. Onus of Proof +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canadian Consolidated Rubber Co.

Plaintiff/appellant

T. Pringle & Son, Limited

Defendant/respondent

The Foundation Company, Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of King’s Bench, Province of Quebec

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether article 1688 C.C. imposes an implied ten-year warranty of stability on builders and architects
  2. 2 Whether approval or directions of a competent architect exonerate the builder
  3. 3 Whether a failure caused by departure in use or operation from the design falls within the builder's warranty

Ratio Decidendi

Article 1688 C.C. imports an implied ten-year warranty of stability; the builder is not exonerated by architect approval or omission to test soil; however, where the failure results from a departure in the use or operation from the design, the warranty does not apply; onus lies on the builder to prove any exception. Applying the facts, failure was due to departure from the designed mode of operation, so respondents were not liable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.