Gillespie v. S & L Hydroponics Inc.

Gillespie v. S & L Hydroponics Inc.

Adjudicator found respondents' version more probable on credibility and documentary/transactional indicators (cash payments, lack of HST paperwork, corroborating witnesses). No enforceable contract between Gillespie and Josey/Worx was proven; however Gillespie unlawfully intercepted/withheld the electrical panel that belonged to the joint enterprise or to Reteff. Applying balance of probabilities and quantum meruit valuation with available credits and payments, award to Reteff of $2,952.00 plus costs $89.68 was appropriate; Gillespie's claim dismissed.

Citation
2011 NSSM 33
Parties
Claimant / Defendant (in Related Action): Ben Gillespie; Business Gillespie Proprietor: B & C's Medicinal Nursery; Defendant: S & L Worx Hydroponics Inc.; Defendant: Loretta Josey; Business Associated Defendant: S & L Overhead Door Services; Claimant / Defendant (in Related Action): Scott Reteff
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court (nova Scotia) / Decision Following Hearing (trial)
Outcome
Gillespie's claim (no. 343301) dismissed; Reteff's claim allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Existence of Contract, Breach of Contract, Quantum Meruit Valuation, Withholding/interception of Goods, Credibility Assessment, Costs
Source Language
English
Contract Law Property (conversion) Civil Procedure Restitution/quantum Meruit Criminal Law Illegality Issues Existence of Contract Breach of Contract Quantum Meruit Valuation +3 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ben Gillespie

Claimant / Defendant (in Related Action)

B & C's Medicinal Nursery

Business Gillespie Proprietor

S & L Worx Hydroponics Inc.

Defendant

Loretta Josey

Defendant

S & L Overhead Door Services

Business Associated Defendant

Scott Reteff

Claimant / Defendant (in Related Action)

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court (nova Scotia) / Decision Following Hearing (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding contract existed between Gillespie and Josey/Worx for supply of equipment
  2. 2 Whether Gillespie was entitled to the amounts claimed under his invoice
  3. 3 Whether Reteff was entitled to damages for interception/withholding of the electrical panel

Ratio Decidendi

Adjudicator found respondents' version more probable on credibility and documentary/transactional indicators (cash payments, lack of HST paperwork, corroborating witnesses). No enforceable contract between Gillespie and Josey/Worx was proven; however Gillespie unlawfully intercepted/withheld the electrical panel that belonged to the joint enterprise or to Reteff. Applying balance of probabilities and quantum meruit valuation with available credits and payments, award to Reteff of $2,952.00 plus costs $89.68 was appropriate; Gillespie's claim dismissed.

Court Disposition

Gillespie's claim (no. 343301) dismissed; Reteff's claim allowed in part.

Orders

  • Dismiss claim no. 343301 (Gillespie v. S & L Worx Hydroponics Inc.)
  • Award to Scott Reteff in the amount of CAD 2952.00