Lakin v. Nuttall

Lakin v. Nuttall

Plaintiff failed to perform the contractual obligation (one 200‑ft tunnel) and there was no evidence defendants accepted partial performance; the particulars limited reliance on the common counts; therefore plaintiff could not recover and the judgment for defendants was affirmed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1879) 3 SCR 685
Parties
Appellant: Frank Lakin; Respondents: Thomas Nuttall et al
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 May 1879
Procedural Posture
Appeal Contract Action / On Appeal From Supreme Court of British Columbia; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court below affirmed
Legal Topics
Performance of Contract, Quantum Meruit, Acceptance of Partial Performance, Particulars of Demand, Pleading, Non Suit, Agency/authority to Bind Principal
Source Language
english
Contract Civil Procedure Agency Performance of Contract Quantum Meruit Acceptance of Partial Performance Particulars of Demand Pleading +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frank Lakin

Appellant

Thomas Nuttall et al

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal Contract Action / On Appeal From Supreme Court of British Columbia; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff fulfilled the sealed contract to run a single 200‑foot tunnel as a condition precedent to recovery
  2. 2 Whether defendants adopted or accepted partial performance such that recovery on a quantum meruit is available
  3. 3 Whether the particulars endorsed on the writ limited the plaintiff to proof under the special contract and precluded evidence under the common counts

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to perform the contractual obligation (one 200‑ft tunnel) and there was no evidence defendants accepted partial performance; the particulars limited reliance on the common counts; therefore plaintiff could not recover and the judgment for defendants was affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the Court below affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment for defendants entered (rule absolute)