Runnymede Iron & Steel Ltd. v. Rossen Engineering and Construction

Runnymede Iron & Steel Ltd. v. Rossen Engineering and Construction

Majority held the seller delivered relaying rails mixed with goods of a different description (scrap); because 20–25% of the shipment was non‑conforming the deviation was not de minimis and under s.29(3) the buyer was entitled to reject the whole shipment and recover the deposit.

Citation
[1962] SCR 26
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Runnymede Iron & Steel Limited; Defendant Respondent: Rossen Engineering and Construction Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 October 1961
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil Sale of Goods) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgments below set aside in respect of liability; dissent by Kerwin C.J. and Judson J.
Legal Topics
Rejection of Goods, Sale by Description, Mixing of Goods, Interpretation of Contractual Description, Application of De Minimis
Source Language
English
Sale of Goods Contract Law Commercial Law Rejection of Goods Sale by Description Mixing of Goods Interpretation of Contractual Description Application of De Minimis

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Runnymede Iron & Steel Limited

Plaintiff Appellant

Rossen Engineering and Construction Company

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil Sale of Goods) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether buyer could reject entire shipment where delivered goods of the contractual description were mixed with goods of a different description under s.29(3) of the Sale of Goods Act (R.S.O. 1950)
  2. 2 Whether inferior or damaged items constitute goods of a different description or merely the same description of inferior quality
  3. 3 Whether the proportion of non-conforming goods was de minimis

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the seller delivered relaying rails mixed with goods of a different description (scrap); because 20–25% of the shipment was non‑conforming the deviation was not de minimis and under s.29(3) the buyer was entitled to reject the whole shipment and recover the deposit.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgments below set aside in respect of liability; dissent by Kerwin C.J. and Judson J.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Set aside judgments of trial court and Court of Appeal insofar as they denied return of deposit