Markham v. Continental Marble & Granite Limited et al.

Markham v. Continental Marble & Granite Limited et al.

The phrase 'the total value of the granite contract' as defined in the agreement ('the value of the contract being based upon the total cost of the granite delivered to the job, and including all costs except the actual cost of installing the granite on the building') is properly construed to refer to the total value of the cladding (facing) contract including all costs other than installation; accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to 4% of that amount as awarded by the trial judge.

Citation
[1968] SCR 742
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Ronald Victor Markham; Defendant/respondent: Continental Marble & Granite Ltd.; Defendant/respondent: Bordignon Masonry Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 May 1968
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia Concerning Interpretation of a Written Remuneration Agreement
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the trial court restored; plaintiff entitled to remuneration as calculated by the trial judge; costs awarded to plaintiff in this Court and in the Court of Appeal for British Columbia.
Legal Topics
Contract Interpretation, Remuneration Calculation, Construction/facing Contracts, Contractual Ambiguity
Source Language
English
Contract Law Contract Interpretation Remuneration Calculation Construction/facing Contracts Contractual Ambiguity

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

Parties

Ronald Victor Markham

Plaintiff/appellant

Continental Marble & Granite Ltd.

Defendant/respondent

Bordignon Masonry Ltd.

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia Concerning Interpretation of a Written Remuneration Agreement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of the phrase 'the total value of the granite contract' in the written agreement
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff's 4% fee applied to the total cladding (facing) contract value less installation costs or only to the value of granite material delivered less installation costs
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal's narrower construction was correct

Ratio Decidendi

The phrase 'the total value of the granite contract' as defined in the agreement ('the value of the contract being based upon the total cost of the granite delivered to the job, and including all costs except the actual cost of installing the granite on the building') is properly construed to refer to the total value of the cladding (facing) contract including all costs other than installation; accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to 4% of that amount as awarded by the trial judge.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the trial court restored; plaintiff entitled to remuneration as calculated by the trial judge; costs awarded to plaintiff in this Court and in the Court of Appeal for British Columbia.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment at trial restored