Bernard v. Marlin Pools & Spas Ltd.

Bernard v. Marlin Pools & Spas Ltd.

The court found the installation was not performed in a workmanlike manner, breaching s.26(5) of the Consumer Protection Act, but did not find the goods themselves proven defective under s.26(3); rescission was not justified and the appropriate remedy was damages to cover reinstallation and replacement of buttresses, plus prejudgment interest and costs.

Citation
2014 NSSM 49
Parties
Claimant: Jim Bernard; Claimant: Betty Bernard; Defendant: Marlin Pools & Spas Ltd.
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Breach of Contract / Consumer Protection / Final Decision (judgment)
Outcome
Judgment for Claimants; Defendant liable to Claimants in the sum of $2816.67.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Implied Warranties, Installation Services, Rescission, Mitigation of Damages, Expert Evidence Admissibility, Prejudgment Interest, Costs
Source Language
English
Contract Law Consumer Protection Civil Remedies Evidence Breach of Contract Implied Warranties Installation Services Rescission +4 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jim Bernard

Claimant

Betty Bernard

Claimant

Marlin Pools & Spas Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Breach of Contract / Consumer Protection / Final Decision (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What were the contractual terms and parties?
  2. 2 Did the defendant breach implied warranties under the Consumer Protection Act?
  3. 3 Was rescission appropriate or should damages be awarded?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the installation was not performed in a workmanlike manner, breaching s.26(5) of the Consumer Protection Act, but did not find the goods themselves proven defective under s.26(3); rescission was not justified and the appropriate remedy was damages to cover reinstallation and replacement of buttresses, plus prejudgment interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Claimants; Defendant liable to Claimants in the sum of $2816.67.

Orders

  • Award $2000 for reinstallation (installation fee) plus HST totaling $2300
  • Award $200 to replace buttresses