Canadian International Paper Co. v. Soper

Canadian International Paper Co. v. Soper

Because the written descriptions were equivocal, parol evidence was admissible to determine the parties' common understanding; the evidence showed either no meeting of minds or a material difference between what was ordered and delivered, justifying rejection of the goods and defeating the sellers' claim for the price; the trial judge's dismissal of the action was therefore correct and restored.

Citation
[1931] SCR 718
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Canadian International Paper Co.; Plaintiffs/respondents: Soper et al
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 June 1931
Procedural Posture
Sale of Goods Dispute (contract for Sale of Ploughs) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored; plaintiffs' action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Rejection of Goods, Parol Evidence Rule, Consensus Ad Idem, Contract Construction, Reformation
Source Language
English
Sale of Goods Contract Law Evidence Contract Interpretation Rejection of Goods Parol Evidence Rule Consensus Ad Idem Contract Construction +1 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canadian International Paper Co.

Defendant/appellant

Soper et al

Plaintiffs/respondents

Procedural Posture

Sale of Goods Dispute (contract for Sale of Ploughs) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether goods delivered conformed to the written orders
  2. 2 Whether parol evidence was admissible to identify the subject matter when the written description was equivocal
  3. 3 Whether the parties were ad idem (had a meeting of the minds) as to the kind of ploughs ordered

Ratio Decidendi

Because the written descriptions were equivocal, parol evidence was admissible to determine the parties' common understanding; the evidence showed either no meeting of minds or a material difference between what was ordered and delivered, justifying rejection of the goods and defeating the sellers' claim for the price; the trial judge's dismissal of the action was therefore correct and restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored; plaintiffs' action dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs to appellant in this Court and in the Appellate Division of Ontario
  • Judgment of the trial judge restored (dismissal of the plaintiffs' action)