Agricultural Chemicals Limited v. Boisjoli

Agricultural Chemicals Limited v. Boisjoli

Majority held the error as to the object (potassium sulphate ordered but ammonium nitrate supplied) destroyed consent so the contract was non‑existent; the defendant's liability arose in negligence for its employee's error, the contractual exclusion clause did not apply to non‑contractual fault, and the purchaser had no duty to inspect before use; appellant liable for full damages.

Citation
[1972] SCR 278
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Agricultural Chemicals Limited; Plaintiff/respondent: Roger Boisjoli
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 May 1971
Procedural Posture
Sale of Goods/contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench (quebec)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross‑appeal allowed (Pigeon J. dissenting in part)
Legal Topics
Delivery of Wrong Goods, Error as to Object of Contract, Non‑existence of Contract, Rescission Vs Voidness, Exclusion Clause/limitation of Liability, Duty to Inspect, Damages, Apportionment of Fault
Source Language
English
Sale of Goods Contract Tort Negligence Delivery of Wrong Goods Error as to Object of Contract Non‑existence of Contract Rescission Vs Voidness +4 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 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Agricultural Chemicals Limited

Defendant/appellant

Roger Boisjoli

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Sale of Goods/contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Queen's Bench (quebec)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an error as to the object of the agreement rendered the contract non‑existent
  2. 2 Whether the purchaser had a duty to inspect or verify the delivered product before use
  3. 3 Whether a contractual non‑liability clause barred recovery where fault was non‑contractual

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the error as to the object (potassium sulphate ordered but ammonium nitrate supplied) destroyed consent so the contract was non‑existent; the defendant's liability arose in negligence for its employee's error, the contractual exclusion clause did not apply to non‑contractual fault, and the purchaser had no duty to inspect before use; appellant liable for full damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross‑appeal allowed (Pigeon J. dissenting in part)

Orders

  • Appellant condemned to pay respondent $32,235.70 with interest from the date of service of the action
  • Respondent entitled to costs throughout