Cunnigham v. Insinger

Cunnigham v. Insinger

Majority held that where an extension was granted in consideration of specific development work that formed an essential part of the owner's development scheme and it was within reasonable contemplation that the owner would complete such work, the proper measure of damages for breach is the cost of completing the work rather than merely the increase in property value.

Citation
[1924] SCR 8
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Clarence Cunningham; Respondent (plaintiff): Robert Insinger
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 December 1923
Procedural Posture
Contract (option to Purchase Mining Property); Sale by Instalments; Extension of Payment Conditioned on Development Work / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia; Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Court of Appeal for British Columbia affirmed.
Legal Topics
Option to Purchase, Extension of Time for Payment, Development Work Obligation, Measure of Damages, Breach and Relinquishment of Option
Source Language
English
Contract Property Mining Remedies (damages) Option to Purchase Extension of Time for Payment Development Work Obligation Measure 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clarence Cunningham

Appellant (defendant)

Robert Insinger

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Contract (option to Purchase Mining Property); Sale by Instalments; Extension of Payment Conditioned on Development Work / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia; Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether development work agreed as condition of an extension was an independent obligation enforceable after appellant relinquished the option
  2. 2 Proper measure of damages for failure to perform development work: cost of completion vs diminution in value
  3. 3 Whether implied conditions or respondent's acts excused performance

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that where an extension was granted in consideration of specific development work that formed an essential part of the owner's development scheme and it was within reasonable contemplation that the owner would complete such work, the proper measure of damages for breach is the cost of completing the work rather than merely the increase in property value.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Court of Appeal for British Columbia affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Respondent awarded an account of ore mined, milled, shipped or treated by appellant