Cape Breton Flooring Ltd. v. MacLeod

Cape Breton Flooring Ltd. v. MacLeod

On the balance of probabilities the cupping resulted from the Claimant's failure to properly acclimate the solid hardwood as required by Mercier and NWFA guidance (boxes not opened, installation started the next day, windows/doors open and high ambient humidity); the Claimant therefore did not meet installation...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2012 NSSM 25
Parties
Claimant: Cape Breton Flooring Limited; Defendant: Ian MacLeod; Defendant: Helen MacLeod
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Supply and Installation of Flooring (contract) / Decision on Merits
Outcome
Claimant's claim dismissed; Defendants' counterclaim partially allowed
Legal Topics
Hardwood Flooring, Radiant in Floor Heating, Warranty Limitations, Acclimation Requirements, Cupping (floor Defect), Remedies, Expert Evidence
Source Language
english
Contract Consumer Protection Sale of Goods Construction Tort (negligence) Hardwood Flooring Radiant in Floor Heating Warranty Limitations +4 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cape Breton Flooring Limited

Claimant

Ian MacLeod

Defendant

Helen MacLeod

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Supply and Installation of Flooring (contract) / Decision on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the cupping defect caused by installation over in-floor radiant heat or by failure to properly acclimate the solid hardwood?
  2. 2 Did the Claimant comply with manufacturer and industry installation standards (Mercier and NWFA)?
  3. 3 Did the Claimant breach contract or act negligently in installation?

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the cupping resulted from the Claimant's failure to properly acclimate the solid hardwood as required by Mercier and NWFA guidance (boxes not opened, installation started the next day, windows/doors open and high ambient humidity); the Claimant therefore did not meet installation standards and the Claimant's claim for payment was dismissed; defendants awarded removal costs and incidental costs but not replacement costs.

Court Disposition

Claimant's claim dismissed; Defendants' counterclaim partially allowed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed.
  • Defendants awarded $1,513.90 (removal of flooring with HST $1,444.00 and costs $69.90).