Premier Lumber Co. v. Grand Trunk Pac. Railway Co.

Premier Lumber Co. v. Grand Trunk Pac. Railway Co.

Appeal dismissed: majority held the respondent was not liable because the appellant failed to give the written notice of loss within the four‑month period required by the bill of lading and the evidence indicated delivery to the purchaser occurred with the appellant's knowledge/consent so no recoverable loss was established against the initial carrier under the contract.

Citation
[1923] SCR 84
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Premier Lumber Company; Respondent / Defendant: Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 November 1922
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Carriage of Goods / Final Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Misdelivery, Bills of Lading, Notice of Loss Clause, Liability of Initial Carrier for Connecting Carrier, Warehouseman Liability, Straight Bill of Lading
Source Language
English
Transportation Carriage of Goods Contract Law Commercial Law Misdelivery Bills of Lading Notice of Loss Clause Liability of Initial Carrier for Connecting Carrier +2 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Premier Lumber Company

Appellant / Plaintiff

Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Carriage of Goods / Final Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the initial carrier (Grand Trunk Pacific) is liable for loss caused by misdelivery by the connecting carrier (Canadian Pacific/Soo Line) under section 2 of the standard bill of lading
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's failure to give the written notice of loss within the four‑month contractual period bars recovery
  3. 3 What the word "loss" means in sections 2 and 4 of the standard bill of lading (physical loss vs. pecuniary loss or wilful misfeasance)

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed: majority held the respondent was not liable because the appellant failed to give the written notice of loss within the four‑month period required by the bill of lading and the evidence indicated delivery to the purchaser occurred with the appellant's knowledge/consent so no recoverable loss was established against the initial carrier under the contract.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia affirmed