Argo Construction Ltd. v. Customold Fiberglass Ltd.

Argo Construction Ltd. v. Customold Fiberglass Ltd.

Majority held that appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving the poles did not meet the contractual performance specification and that there was no basis for appellate interference with the Court of Appeal’s factual assessment; accordingly the supplier was entitled to the full invoice and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[1976] 1 SCR 132
Parties
Appellant/counterclaimant: Argo Construction Ltd.; Respondent: Customold Fiberglass Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 May 1974
Procedural Posture
Contract Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen’s Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec (on Appeal From Superior Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Judgment of the Court of Appeal ordering Argo to pay Customold $15,750 upheld; cross-demand dismissed (Martland and Pigeon JJ. dissenting).
Legal Topics
Performance Specifications, Breach of Contract, Damages, Expert Evidence, Appellate Review/non Intervention Rule
Source Language
English
Contract Commercial Law Construction Law Evidence Performance Specifications Breach of Contract Damages Expert Evidence +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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Argo Construction Ltd.

Appellant/counterclaimant

Customold Fiberglass Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contract Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Queen’s Bench, Appeal Side, Province of Quebec (on Appeal From Superior Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the delivered fiberglass poles comply with the contractual performance specification (90 mph wind resistance)?
  2. 2 Is the supplier entitled to the full contract price despite alleged non-compliance?
  3. 3 Were the appellant’s cross-claim damages proven and attributable to the supplier’s breach?

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving the poles did not meet the contractual performance specification and that there was no basis for appellate interference with the Court of Appeal’s factual assessment; accordingly the supplier was entitled to the full invoice and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Judgment of the Court of Appeal ordering Argo to pay Customold $15,750 upheld; cross-demand dismissed (Martland and Pigeon JJ. dissenting).

Orders

  • Argo Construction Ltd. to pay Customold Fiberglass Ltd. the invoiced amount of $15,750.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent (costs of the appeal to respondent).