Woodrow v. Gerald Mitchell Contracting Ltd.

Woodrow v. Gerald Mitchell Contracting Ltd.

On the balance of probabilities the objective evidence (supplier quote, absence of an extras charge, and credible testimony of the defendant's general manager) established the parties did not agree that Low E Argon windows would be supplied; therefore there was no breach of contract and the claim is dismissed (limitation argument would also likely bar the claim).

Citation
2016 NSSM 47
Parties
Claimant: John Woodrow; Claimant: Dione Woodrow; Defendant: Gerald Mitchell Contracting Ltd.
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Contract Dispute (construction) / Hearing and Decision (final)
Outcome
Claim dismissed without costs
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Contract Formation, Discoverability, Limitation Period, Damages, Witness Credibility, Evidence
Source Language
English
Contract Law Construction Law Limitations (statute of Limitations) Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Contract Formation Discoverability Limitation Period +3 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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Woodrow

Claimant

Dione Woodrow

Claimant

Gerald Mitchell Contracting Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Contract Dispute (construction) / Hearing and Decision (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract between the parties included a requirement that windows be Low E Argon
  2. 2 Whether the claim is statute-barred under the applicable limitations regime and/or saved by discoverability or s.3 discretion
  3. 3 What, if any, damages are recoverable and their quantum

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the objective evidence (supplier quote, absence of an extras charge, and credible testimony of the defendant's general manager) established the parties did not agree that Low E Argon windows would be supplied; therefore there was no breach of contract and the claim is dismissed (limitation argument would also likely bar the claim).

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed without costs

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • No costs awarded