Tanner v. Schrader

Tanner v. Schrader

The adjudicator found the drywall work was not done properly, accepted the defendant's detailed calculation that the claimant overcharged by $1,032.58, dismissed the claimant's claim, allowed the counterclaim to that extent, and rejected the larger lost-rent claim as not within the claimant's contemplation (Hadley foreseeability).

Citation
2017 NSSM 53
Parties
Claimant: JUSTIN TANNER; Claimant: JT'S DRYWALL SERVICES; Defendant: CRAIG SCHRADER
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Contract / Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed in part
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Workmanship/quality, Overbilling, Foreseeability of Damages, Counterclaim, Filing Fee
Source Language
English
Contract Law Construction Law Civil Procedure Damages Breach of Contract Workmanship/quality Overbilling Foreseeability of Damages +2 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JUSTIN TANNER

Claimant

JT'S DRYWALL SERVICES

Claimant

CRAIG SCHRADER

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Contract / Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is owed balance on drywall contract
  2. 2 Whether work was performed in a workmanlike manner
  3. 3 Whether defendant overpaid/claimant overcharged

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator found the drywall work was not done properly, accepted the defendant's detailed calculation that the claimant overcharged by $1,032.58, dismissed the claimant's claim, allowed the counterclaim to that extent, and rejected the larger lost-rent claim as not within the claimant's contemplation (Hadley foreseeability).

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed in part

Orders

  • Claim dismissed.
  • Defendant awarded $1,032.58 on the counterclaim.