Steel Co. of Canada v. The Queen

Steel Co. of Canada v. The Queen

Majority held that the invoices' notation 'F.O.B. Hd. of Lakes' manifested the parties' intention that delivery and passing of property would occur at the Head of the Lakes; accordingly property did not pass nor was there delivery to the purchasers in Montreal and s.86(1) did not impose the sales tax; appeal allowed and action dismissed with costs.

Citation
[1955] SCR 161
Parties
Appellant/defendant: The Steel Company of Canada Limited; Respondent/plaintiff: Her Majesty The Queen
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 January 1955
Procedural Posture
Taxation (sales Tax) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal allowed; action dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
F.o.b. Terms, Passing of Property, Delivery to Carrier as Delivery to Purchaser, Statutory Interpretation of Sales Tax Statute, Application of Sale of Goods Act
Source Language
English
Taxation Contract Law Sale of Goods Commercial Law F.o.b. Terms Passing of Property Delivery to Carrier as Delivery to Purchaser Statutory Interpretation of Sales Tax Statute +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 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Steel Company of Canada Limited

Appellant/defendant

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Taxation (sales Tax) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Exchequer Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Meaning and effect of the term 'F.O.B. Hd. of Lakes' in the invoices
  2. 2 Whether delivery to the carrier at Montreal constituted delivery to the purchasers
  3. 3 Whether property in the goods passed to purchasers before destruction

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that the invoices' notation 'F.O.B. Hd. of Lakes' manifested the parties' intention that delivery and passing of property would occur at the Head of the Lakes; accordingly property did not pass nor was there delivery to the purchasers in Montreal and s.86(1) did not impose the sales tax; appeal allowed and action dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; action dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Action dismissed with costs throughout