Cargill Grain Ltd. v. Davie Shipbuilding Ltd.

Cargill Grain Ltd. v. Davie Shipbuilding Ltd.

Contract No.7 was silent on the method of determining shipping weight; Davie failed to prove that the draught displacement method was a commercially acceptable method for structural steel and relied on an inadmissible hearsay tabulation by a deceased employee. The only admissible weight evidence was Armstrong’s measurement-based calculation (21.1 tons) and the award for additional steel must be reduced accordingly; appeal allowed and Superior Court judgment varied by reducing the order by $125,307.

Citation
[1977] 1 SCR 659
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Cargill Grain Limited; Plaintiff Respondent: Davie Shipbuilding Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 December 1975
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Quebec; Decision on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of Court of Appeal set aside in part; judgment of Superior Court varied by reducing the amount of the order by $125,307; no costs in this Court or in the Court of Appeal
Legal Topics
Calculation of Weight, Draught Displacement Method, Hearsay Evidence, Interpretation of Contract, Onus of Proof, Weights and Measures Act
Source Language
English
Sale of Goods Contract Law Evidence Law Commercial Law Weights and Measures Calculation of Weight Draught Displacement Method Hearsay Evidence +3 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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cargill Grain Limited

Defendant Appellant

Davie Shipbuilding Limited

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Quebec; Decision on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the draught displacement method was stipulated or an appropriate commercial method for determining shipping weight under contract No.7
  2. 2 Whether the J.R. Josslyn tabulation was admissible or inadmissible hearsay
  3. 3 What method of weight determination the contract required and whether the trial evidence supported Davie’s claimed additional weight

Ratio Decidendi

Contract No.7 was silent on the method of determining shipping weight; Davie failed to prove that the draught displacement method was a commercially acceptable method for structural steel and relied on an inadmissible hearsay tabulation by a deceased employee. The only admissible weight evidence was Armstrong’s measurement-based calculation (21.1 tons) and the award for additional steel must be reduced accordingly; appeal allowed and Superior Court judgment varied by reducing the order by $125,307.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of Court of Appeal set aside in part; judgment of Superior Court varied by reducing the amount of the order by $125,307; no costs in this Court or in the Court of Appeal

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Court of Appeal judgment set aside in part