Ross v. Barry

Ross v. Barry

The Court found that the conversation between McRae and Smeaton reasonably induced the subcontractors to expect a higher standard matching the Loop Line, that they relied on that representation and were promised payment for increased costs, and therefore the claim for extra payment was bona fide and recoverable.

Citation
(1891) 19 SCR 360
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Barry; Plaintiff/respondent: Smeaton; Defendant/appellant: Ross; Defendant/appellant: McRae
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 June 1891
Procedural Posture
Contract / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment for plaintiffs affirmed
Legal Topics
Quality of Work, Subcontracting, Parol Evidence, Price Variation, Construction Contracts, Representations and Reliance
Source Language
English
Contract Quality of Work Subcontracting Parol Evidence Price Variation Construction Contracts Representations and Reliance

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barry

Plaintiff/respondent

Smeaton

Plaintiff/respondent

Ross

Defendant/appellant

McRae

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Contract / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral representation by the contractor induced the subcontractor to perform higher‑standard work and created an obligation to pay an increased price
  2. 2 Whether subsequent instruction to follow plans and specifications negated the earlier representation
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs' claim for extra payment was bona fide

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the conversation between McRae and Smeaton reasonably induced the subcontractors to expect a higher standard matching the Loop Line, that they relied on that representation and were promised payment for increased costs, and therefore the claim for extra payment was bona fide and recoverable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment for plaintiffs affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment in favour of plaintiffs for the increased price affirmed