Vancouver Milling and Grain Co. v. C.C. Ranch Co.

Vancouver Milling and Grain Co. v. C.C. Ranch Co.

The seller was excused from liability for non-delivery to the extent shipment was prevented by the railway company's inability or refusal to supply cars because availability of cars at Cayley was an implied condition of the contract and the seller had done all reasonable acts to procure cars; thus non-performance was not the seller's default.

Citation
[1924] SCR 671
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Vancouver Milling and Grain Company; Defendant/respondent: The C. C. Ranch Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 November 1924
Procedural Posture
Sale of Goods/contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta affirmed.
Legal Topics
F.o.b. Contracts, Implied Conditions, Frustration/impossibility, Carrier Allocation of Risk, Delivery Obligations, Damages for Non Delivery
Source Language
English
Contract Law Sale of Goods Commercial Law F.o.b. Contracts Implied Conditions Frustration/impossibility Carrier Allocation of Risk Delivery Obligations +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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vancouver Milling and Grain Company

Plaintiff/appellant

The C. C. Ranch Company

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Sale of Goods/contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether seller was liable for non-delivery where the only carrier refused cars during the delivery period
  2. 2 Whether availability of cars was an implied condition of the contract excusing performance when cars were unobtainable
  3. 3 Whether under an f.o.b. cars contract the buyer or seller must procure cars at the place of shipment

Ratio Decidendi

The seller was excused from liability for non-delivery to the extent shipment was prevented by the railway company's inability or refusal to supply cars because availability of cars at Cayley was an implied condition of the contract and the seller had done all reasonable acts to procure cars; thus non-performance was not the seller's default.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Appellate Division affirmed