Electric Fireproofing Co. of Canada v. Electric Fireproofing Co.

Electric Fireproofing Co. of Canada v. Electric Fireproofing Co.

The Court affirmed that, in the absence of express warranty language or special circumstances (including fraud), an assignment of 'all the right, title and interest' in a patent does not imply a warranty as to the patent's validity, and that here there was no privity between the American assignor and the Canadian purchaser; therefore the appellants' defenses based on invalidity and failure of consideration failed and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
(1910) 43 SCR 182
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Electric Fireproofing Co. of Canada; Respondent (plaintiff): Electric Fireproofing Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 March 1910
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (contract) / Appeal From the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec Sitting in Review at Montreal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Assignment of Patent Rights, Implied Warranty, Privity, Validity of Patent, Caveat Emptor, Novelty, Combination, Patentability New and Useful
Source Language
English
Contract Patent Law Commercial Law Property Assignment of Patent Rights Implied Warranty Privity Validity of Patent +4 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Electric Fireproofing Co. of Canada

Appellant (defendant)

Electric Fireproofing Company

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (contract) / Appeal From the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec Sitting in Review at Montreal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an assignment of 'all the right, title and interest' in a patent implies a warranty of patent validity in absence of express language or special circumstances
  2. 2 Whether there was privity of contract between the American assignor and the Canadian purchaser (agency of Stillman & Hall)
  3. 3 Whether invalidity of a patent constitutes failure of consideration or breach of implied warranty entitling rescission

Ratio Decidendi

The Court affirmed that, in the absence of express warranty language or special circumstances (including fraud), an assignment of 'all the right, title and interest' in a patent does not imply a warranty as to the patent's validity, and that here there was no privity between the American assignor and the Canadian purchaser; therefore the appellants' defenses based on invalidity and failure of consideration failed and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Superior Court and Court of Review affirmed