North American Glass Co. v. Barsalou

North American Glass Co. v. Barsalou

The clause requiring that the furnaces "could not have a production of more than one hundred dollars per day" means actual production averaged over a reasonable continuous period (the ordinary running season), not mere theoretical capacity; because the evidence did not show such actual production the defendants were not entitled to terminate and the lower courts' judgments in favour of the plaintiff were correct.

Citation
(1895) 24 SCR 490
Parties
Defendant/appellant: North American Glass Company; Plaintiff/respondent: Maurice Barsalou
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 May 1895
Procedural Posture
Contract Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From the Superior Court for Lower Canada Sitting in Review at Montreal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court for Lower Canada affirmed
Legal Topics
Contract Construction, Defeasance Clause, Interpretation, Restraint of Trade (abandoned)
Source Language
English
Contract Law Contract Construction Defeasance Clause Interpretation Restraint of Trade (abandoned)

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

North American Glass Company

Defendant/appellant

Maurice Barsalou

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Contract Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From the Superior Court for Lower Canada Sitting in Review at Montreal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the clause "could not have a production of more than one hundred dollars per day" refers to mere capacity to produce that amount or to actual production/output over a reasonable continuous period
  2. 2 Whether the defendants validly elected to terminate the contract based on furnaces started by third parties in Nova Scotia

Ratio Decidendi

The clause requiring that the furnaces "could not have a production of more than one hundred dollars per day" means actual production averaged over a reasonable continuous period (the ordinary running season), not mere theoretical capacity; because the evidence did not show such actual production the defendants were not entitled to terminate and the lower courts' judgments in favour of the plaintiff were correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Court for Lower Canada affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment below affirmed