Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. McCain Produce Co. Ltd. et al.

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. McCain Produce Co. Ltd. et al.

Section 4 of the conditions attached to the bill of lading did not operate to preclude the respondents' claim for consequential damages; therefore the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[1981] 2 SCR 219
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Canadian Pacific Limited; Respondent / Plaintiff: McCain Produce Company Limited; Respondent / Plaintiff: Toner Brothers Limited; Respondent / Plaintiff: Pirie Potato Company Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 June 1981
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (carriage of Goods) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for New Brunswick; Final Disposition by Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Bills of Lading, Limitation of Liability Clauses, Consequential Damages
Source Language
English
Transportation Carriage of Goods Contract Law Bills of Lading Limitation of Liability Clauses Consequential Damages

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canadian Pacific Limited

Appellant / Defendant

McCain Produce Company Limited

Respondent / Plaintiff

Toner Brothers Limited

Respondent / Plaintiff

Pirie Potato Company Limited

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (carriage of Goods) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for New Brunswick; Final Disposition by Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 4 of the conditions attached to the bill of lading precludes the respondents' claim for consequential damages

Ratio Decidendi

Section 4 of the conditions attached to the bill of lading did not operate to preclude the respondents' claim for consequential damages; therefore the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the courts below upheld that section 4 does not preclude claim for consequential damages