Bainton v. John Hallam Limited

Bainton v. John Hallam Limited

Where a sale is by sample and the goods delivered are inferior, purchaser is entitled to damages equal to the difference between the market value of goods of the contracted quality and the market value of the goods actually delivered; resale price is admissible evidence of market value but does not conclusively limit recovery; acceptance of delivery does not bar recovery for breach of warranty.

Citation
(1920) 60 SCR 325
Parties
Appellants (defendants): Frank Bainton and Another; Respondent (plaintiff): John Hallam, Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 April 1920
Procedural Posture
Torts Sale of Goods (sale by Sample) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Appellate Division affirmed.
Legal Topics
Sale by Sample, Breach of Warranty, Measure of Damages, Mitigation of Damages, Effect of Resale on Damages
Source Language
English
Torts Sale of Goods Contract Damages Sale by Sample Breach of Warranty Measure of Damages Mitigation 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frank Bainton and Another

Appellants (defendants)

John Hallam, Limited

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Torts Sale of Goods (sale by Sample) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transaction was a sale by sample
  2. 2 Whether acceptance of delivered goods barred recovery for inferior quality
  3. 3 Proper measure of damages for delivery of goods inferior to sample

Ratio Decidendi

Where a sale is by sample and the goods delivered are inferior, purchaser is entitled to damages equal to the difference between the market value of goods of the contracted quality and the market value of the goods actually delivered; resale price is admissible evidence of market value but does not conclusively limit recovery; acceptance of delivery does not bar recovery for breach of warranty.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of the Appellate Division affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario affirmed.