Adolph Lumber Co. v. Meadow Creek Lumber Co.

Adolph Lumber Co. v. Meadow Creek Lumber Co.

The contract was ambiguous on its face and the parties' subsequent conduct and statements (the seller's manager acknowledging the cancellation and soliciting acceptance of cars on hand) constituted acceptance/acquiescence of the appellant's cancellation; accordingly the trial judge's finding of mutual consent to cancel is upheld and the judgment restoring the trial decision is warranted.

Citation
(1919) 58 SCR 306
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Adolph Lumber Company; Respondent (plaintiff): Meadow Creek Lumber Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 March 1919
Procedural Posture
Contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the trial court restored; Court of Appeal decision reversed.
Legal Topics
Cancellation, Contract Construction, Ambiguity, Acquiescence, Estoppel, Breach, Remedies
Source Language
English
Contract Commercial Law Cancellation Contract Construction Ambiguity Acquiescence Estoppel Breach +1 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adolph Lumber Company

Appellant (defendant)

Meadow Creek Lumber Company

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the purchaser was entitled to cancel the contract for slow shipments
  2. 2 Whether the seller's subsequent conduct amounted to acceptance or acquiescence of the cancellation
  3. 3 How an ambiguous term 'shipping regularly' should be construed in light of the parties' conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The contract was ambiguous on its face and the parties' subsequent conduct and statements (the seller's manager acknowledging the cancellation and soliciting acceptance of cars on hand) constituted acceptance/acquiescence of the appellant's cancellation; accordingly the trial judge's finding of mutual consent to cancel is upheld and the judgment restoring the trial decision is warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the trial court restored; Court of Appeal decision reversed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of the trial court restored