Warren v. Ultimate Countertop Solutions

Warren v. Ultimate Countertop Solutions

The defendant was responsible for a minor measurement error but offered an acceptable remedy by supplying maple moulding at cost; the moulding delivered was maple not MDF, so the claimants had no factual or legal basis to reject it or to withhold the contract balance; consequently the claimants must pay the outstanding balance and the cost of the moulding (if delivered), and no damages for stress or inconvenience are awarded.

Citation
2017 NSSM 26
Parties
Claimant; Defendant by Counterclaim: Raymond F. Warren; Claimant; Defendant by Counterclaim: Daphne L. Beeler; Defendant; Claimant by Counterclaim: Ultimate Countertop Solutions
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court / Decision
Outcome
Counterclaim allowed in part and claim dismissed; Claimants ordered to pay $995.71 for the balance of the contract and $230.00 for the moulding if the moulding is delivered; moulding to be turned over upon payment; no costs awarded.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Payment of Balance, Goods Delivery and Ownership, Remedies, Costs
Source Language
English
Contract Law Construction Consumer Disputes Breach of Contract Payment of Balance Goods Delivery and Ownership Remedies Costs

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raymond F. Warren

Claimant; Defendant by Counterclaim

Daphne L. Beeler

Claimant; Defendant by Counterclaim

Ultimate Countertop Solutions

Defendant; Claimant by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached the contract by providing a backsplash of incorrect dimensions and whether an acceptable remedy was offered
  2. 2 Whether the claimants were entitled to withhold the contract balance and recover costs to complete the work
  3. 3 Whether the moulding supplied was the type promised and whether the claimants were entitled to reject it

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was responsible for a minor measurement error but offered an acceptable remedy by supplying maple moulding at cost; the moulding delivered was maple not MDF, so the claimants had no factual or legal basis to reject it or to withhold the contract balance; consequently the claimants must pay the outstanding balance and the cost of the moulding (if delivered), and no damages for stress or inconvenience are awarded.

Court Disposition

Counterclaim allowed in part and claim dismissed; Claimants ordered to pay $995.71 for the balance of the contract and $230.00 for the moulding if the moulding is delivered; moulding to be turned over upon payment; no costs awarded.

Orders

  • Claimants to pay $995.71 to the Defendant for the balance of the contract.
  • Claimants to pay $230.00 to the Defendant for the maple moulding if and when the moulding is delivered to or made available for the Claimants.