Vieweger Construction Co. Ltd. v. Rush & Tompkins Construction Ltd.

Vieweger Construction Co. Ltd. v. Rush & Tompkins Construction Ltd.

Because Rush & Tompkins elected to contract and deal solely with Layden, it could not thereafter hold Vieweger liable under the subcontract even if a partnership existed; Vieweger had an independent contractual arrangement with Rush & Tompkins for equipment rental and was entitled to arrears of $42,769.64 and to a reference to quantify damages resulting from the interim injunction.

Citation
[1965] SCR 195
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Vieweger Construction Co. Ltd.; Respondent (plaintiff): Rush & Tompkins Construction Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 December 1964
Procedural Posture
Contract Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Appellate Division set aside; judgment at trial varied and restored in part for appellant.
Legal Topics
Enforceability of Subcontract Provisions Against Third Parties, Partnership Attribution and Agency, Interim Injunctions and Undertaking as to Damages, Equipment Rental and Implied Contract
Source Language
English
Contract Partnership Equitable Remedies Civil Procedure Enforceability of Subcontract Provisions Against Third Parties Partnership Attribution and Agency Interim Injunctions and Undertaking as to Damages Equipment Rental and Implied Contract

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vieweger Construction Co. Ltd.

Appellant (defendant)

Rush & Tompkins Construction Ltd.

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Contract Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contractor (Rush & Tompkins) could enforce provisions of its subcontract (para.12) against Vieweger notwithstanding the Layden–Vieweger agreement
  2. 2 Whether Layden and Vieweger were partners and whether alleged partnership made Vieweger liable under the subcontract
  3. 3 Whether Vieweger was entitled to arrears for equipment rental from Rush & Tompkins

Ratio Decidendi

Because Rush & Tompkins elected to contract and deal solely with Layden, it could not thereafter hold Vieweger liable under the subcontract even if a partnership existed; Vieweger had an independent contractual arrangement with Rush & Tompkins for equipment rental and was entitled to arrears of $42,769.64 and to a reference to quantify damages resulting from the interim injunction.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Appellate Division set aside; judgment at trial varied and restored in part for appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment of the Appellate Division set aside