FRP Industrial & Marine Fiberglass Ltd. v. B.A.E. Developments Ltd.

FRP Industrial & Marine Fiberglass Ltd. v. B.A.E. Developments Ltd.

The adjudicator found the purchase order and cheque references genuine and concluded the $10,000 was paid for concrete anchor pads not as a commission; because no work was done and the contract was cancelled, retention of the funds would result in unjust enrichment (and repayment is required under frustration/restution principles), therefore the Defendant must repay $10,000 plus costs.

Citation
2013 NSSM 24
Parties
Claimant: FRP Industrial & Marine Fiberglass Ltd.; Defendant: B.A.E. Developments Ltd.
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Contract Dispute / Decision Rendered
Outcome
Judgment for Claimant
Legal Topics
Deposit Recovery, Commission Dispute, Subcontracting, Forgery Allegation, Frustration of Contract
Source Language
English
Contract Law Restitution Unjust Enrichment Commercial Transactions Deposit Recovery Commission Dispute Subcontracting Forgery Allegation +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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FRP Industrial & Marine Fiberglass Ltd.

Claimant

B.A.E. Developments Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Contract Dispute / Decision Rendered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the $10,000 payment was a commission or payment for concrete anchor pads
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant must repay the $10,000 after the Ten Beaches contract was cancelled
  3. 3 Appropriate legal remedy (unjust enrichment, frustration, fraud/misrepresentation)

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator found the purchase order and cheque references genuine and concluded the $10,000 was paid for concrete anchor pads not as a commission; because no work was done and the contract was cancelled, retention of the funds would result in unjust enrichment (and repayment is required under frustration/restution principles), therefore the Defendant must repay $10,000 plus costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Claimant

Orders

  • Defendant to pay Claimant $10,000.00
  • Defendant to pay Claimant costs of $182.94