Morin v. Hammond Lumber Co.

Morin v. Hammond Lumber Co.

The respondents' oral undertaking was a new, independent substantive contract to pay the appellant for performing the work after Grandmaison absconded, not a guaranty to answer for another's debt within the Statute of Frauds, and is therefore enforceable.

Citation
[1923] SCR 140
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Joseph P. Morin; Respondent/defendant: The Hammond Lumber Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 December 1922
Procedural Posture
Contract / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Novation, Indemnity Vs Guarantee, Oral Contract Enforceability, Woodman's Lien, Rescission of Contract
Source Language
English
Contract Law Statute of Frauds Guarantee and Indemnity Subcontracting Property Law (liens) Novation Indemnity Vs Guarantee Oral Contract Enforceability +2 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph P. Morin

Appellant/plaintiff

The Hammond Lumber Company

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's oral undertaking to pay the appellant amounted to a guaranty (a promise to answer for the debt of another) within the Statute of Frauds requiring a written memorandum
  2. 2 Whether the parties' arrangement constituted a new independent contract (novation or separate undertaking) enforceable despite being oral
  3. 3 Whether liens or the Woodman's Lien Act or other facts placed the undertaking outside the Statute of Frauds

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents' oral undertaking was a new, independent substantive contract to pay the appellant for performing the work after Grandmaison absconded, not a guaranty to answer for another's debt within the Statute of Frauds, and is therefore enforceable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs throughout
  • Judgment for appellant for the amount of the jury verdict of 10000 (ten thousand)