Alwinsal Potash of Canada Ltd. v. Gettle Bros. Construction Co.

Alwinsal Potash of Canada Ltd. v. Gettle Bros. Construction Co.

The Court held the contractor was justified in abandoning work because the owner demanded harsh and unrealistic settlement in respect of deficient foundation concrete, and therefore the contractor was entitled to recover on a quantum meruit basis with interest; the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed accordingly.

Citation
[1971] SCR 320
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Alwinsal Potash of Canada Limited; Plaintiff Respondent: Gettle Bros. Construction Co. Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 November 1970
Procedural Posture
Contract Mechanics' Lien / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal dismissed without costs.
Legal Topics
Quantum Meruit, Abandonment of Work, Interest, Contract Termination, Construction Defects
Source Language
English
Contract Construction Law Mechanics' Lien Quantum Meruit Abandonment of Work Interest Contract Termination Construction Defects

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alwinsal Potash of Canada Limited

Defendant Appellant

Gettle Bros. Construction Co. Ltd.

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contract Mechanics' Lien / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the contractor justified in abandoning the contract?
  2. 2 Was the contractor entitled to recover on a quantum meruit basis despite abandonment?
  3. 3 Were interest and remedies available under The Mechanics' Lien Act applicable?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the contractor was justified in abandoning work because the owner demanded harsh and unrealistic settlement in respect of deficient foundation concrete, and therefore the contractor was entitled to recover on a quantum meruit basis with interest; the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed accordingly.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal dismissed without costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Cross-appeal dismissed without costs