Gallant v. Gerrard
The 2005 compromise between the parties constituted an accord and satisfaction that settled the disputed workmanship claim and precludes the claimant from reopening the issue; the six-year limitation provision does not operate as a warranty extending the claimant's rights beyond that settlement, therefore the claim...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2009 NSSM 58
- Parties
- Claimant: GREGORY ALLEN GALLANT; Defendant: BARRY CHESTER GERRARD
- Court
- Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 28 October 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Small Claims Court / Decision (hearing Held and Decision Rendered)
- Outcome
- Claim dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Builder's Lien, Limitation Period, Settlement/compromise, Warranty, Accord and Satisfaction, Enforcement of Lien
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
GREGORY ALLEN GALLANT
Claimant
BARRY CHESTER GERRARD
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court / Decision (hearing Held and Decision Rendered)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether claimant can recover repair costs despite a prior compromise in 2005
- 2 Whether the 2005 compromise (accord and satisfaction) precludes reopening a dispute about defective workmanship
- 3 Applicability and effect of the six-year limitation period under the Limitations Act
Ratio Decidendi
The 2005 compromise between the parties constituted an accord and satisfaction that settled the disputed workmanship claim and precludes the claimant from reopening the issue; the six-year limitation provision does not operate as a warranty extending the claimant's rights beyond that settlement, therefore the claim is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Claim dismissed.
Orders
- Claim dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment