Crump v. Toronto Dominion Centre Ltd.

Crump v. Toronto Dominion Centre Ltd.

The Supreme Court majority held that there was sufficient evidentiary foundation (Pigott's testimony and the May 24/25 memorandum) to support the trial judge's factual finding that the owner agreed to pay for the preparation of the G.U.P. estimate (including costs plus a 5.5% fee if the contract was not awarded), and therefore restored the $13,187 award; the Court did not disturb the Court of Appeal's reduction of the cut‑off date for other indirect costs and upheld the reference to the Master to quantify those amounts; cross‑appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[1977] 1 SCR 25
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Crump Mechanical Contracting Limited; Defendant/respondent: Toronto‑Dominion Centre Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 January 1976
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract Dispute / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario (with Cross‑appeal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part (trial award of $13,187 for G.U.P. estimate restored); remainder of claim referred to Master with cut‑off date as fixed by Court of Appeal; cross‑appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Damages, Formation of Contract, Letter of Intent, Unjust Enrichment, Mitigation of Damages, Reference to Master
Source Language
English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Remedies Damages Formation of Contract Letter of Intent Unjust Enrichment Mitigation of Damages +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crump Mechanical Contracting Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

Toronto‑Dominion Centre Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract Dispute / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario (with Cross‑appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence established a contractual obligation to pay $13,187 for preparation of the Guaranteed Upset Price estimate
  2. 2 Whether the award could be supported on unjust enrichment
  3. 3 Appropriate cut‑off date for recoverable indirect costs (September 30, 1967 v. August 31, 1967)

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court majority held that there was sufficient evidentiary foundation (Pigott's testimony and the May 24/25 memorandum) to support the trial judge's factual finding that the owner agreed to pay for the preparation of the G.U.P. estimate (including costs plus a 5.5% fee if the contract was not awarded), and therefore restored the $13,187 award; the Court did not disturb the Court of Appeal's reduction of the cut‑off date for other indirect costs and upheld the reference to the Master to quantify those amounts; cross‑appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part (trial award of $13,187 for G.U.P. estimate restored); remainder of claim referred to Master with cut‑off date as fixed by Court of Appeal; cross‑appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to recover from Defendant the sum of 13187.00 CAD for preparation of the G.U.P. estimate.
  • Refer to the Master to inquire and determine the Plaintiff's indirect costs related to Tower No. 2 for the period July 1, 1967 to August 31, 1967, the proportion of the account of $51,741.55 incurred for design and drafting prior to August 31, 1967, and to award the Plaintiff those amounts plus a fee of 5.5% upon...