Camelot Homes Inc. v. Robertson

Camelot Homes Inc. v. Robertson

The claim is dismissed because the claimant failed to prove the 30% clause was a genuine pre-estimate of loss and it was therefore a penalty unenforceable at law; additionally the claimant's material misrepresentation about roof pitch and warranty coverage entitled the defendant to cancel, and the Direct Sellers Act was in any event inapplicable by statutory exemption for a purchaser engaged in business for gain.

Citation
2011 NSSM 58
Parties
Claimant: CAMELOT HOMES INCORPORATED; Defendant: LORRAINE ROBERTSON
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Contract Dispute / Decision (final)
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Liquidated Damages, Penalty Clause, Direct Sellers Regulation, Warranty, Misrepresentation, Contract Cancellation, Roofing
Source Language
English
Contract Law Consumer Protection Construction Law Equity Unconscionability Liquidated Damages Penalty Clause Direct Sellers Regulation Warranty +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CAMELOT HOMES INCORPORATED

Claimant

LORRAINE ROBERTSON

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Contract Dispute / Decision (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Direct Sellers Regulation Act applies to the transaction
  2. 2 Whether the 30% liquidated damages clause is a penalty or a genuine pre-estimate of damages or otherwise unconscionable
  3. 3 Whether there was a material misrepresentation regarding roof pitch and warranty coverage

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is dismissed because the claimant failed to prove the 30% clause was a genuine pre-estimate of loss and it was therefore a penalty unenforceable at law; additionally the claimant's material misrepresentation about roof pitch and warranty coverage entitled the defendant to cancel, and the Direct Sellers Act was in any event inapplicable by statutory exemption for a purchaser engaged in business for gain.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • No costs awarded