Cabinet Concepts Inc. v. Starrat

Cabinet Concepts Inc. v. Starrat

The claimant repeatedly supplied materials and workmanship that did not conform to the agreed premium specifications and failed to cure defects despite multiple remediation attempts; as a result the defendants were justified in terminating the contract and are entitled to recover the reasonable cost to complete and remedy the work, set off against the balance claimed by the claimant. The court accepted the defendants' budget as the best available evidence and allowed the counterclaim.

Citation
2022 NSSM 39
Parties
Claimant (defendant by Counterclaim): Cabinet Concepts Inc.; Defendant (claimant by Counterclaim): Gregory Starrat; Defendant (claimant by Counterclaim): Dede Hiscock
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Breach of Contract (kitchen Cabinetry) / Decision (final Reasons and Order)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Termination for Fundamental Breach, Acceptance and Rejection of Goods, Measure of Damages, Counterclaim and Set Off
Source Language
English
Contract Law Construction/renovation Disputes Commercial Small Claims Breach of Contract Termination for Fundamental Breach Acceptance and Rejection of Goods Measure of Damages Counterclaim and Set Off

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cabinet Concepts Inc.

Claimant (defendant by Counterclaim)

Gregory Starrat

Defendant (claimant by Counterclaim)

Dede Hiscock

Defendant (claimant by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Breach of Contract (kitchen Cabinetry) / Decision (final Reasons and Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant supplied goods and workmanship conforming to the contractual specifications (quarter-sawn, book matched, butt matched, premium veneer and colour)
  2. 2 Whether the defendants were entitled to reject the work and terminate the contract after repeated failed remediations
  3. 3 Quantum of damages for completing remedial work and proper set-off against balance owing

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant repeatedly supplied materials and workmanship that did not conform to the agreed premium specifications and failed to cure defects despite multiple remediation attempts; as a result the defendants were justified in terminating the contract and are entitled to recover the reasonable cost to complete and remedy the work, set off against the balance claimed by the claimant. The court accepted the defendants' budget as the best available evidence and allowed the counterclaim.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed.
  • Counterclaim allowed in the amount $5,882.68.