Jones & Lyttle v. Mackie

Jones & Lyttle v. Mackie

The Appellate Division erred in reversing the trial judgment on the basis of fraud that had not been pleaded or put in issue; the appeal was allowed and the trial judgment (awarding damages subject to a reference regarding the estimated cost) was restored, because the suspension for lack of funds amounted to a breach entitling the contractor to damages and unpleaded fraud could not justify rescission.

Citation
(1918) 59 SCR 668
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Jones & Lyttle; Respondent (defendant): Mackie
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 March 1918
Procedural Posture
Contract Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of Appellate Division reversed and trial judgment reinstated
Legal Topics
Stoppage of Work, Rescission, Damages, Fraud, Pleading, Amendment of Defence on Appeal
Source Language
English
Contract Procedure Stoppage of Work Rescission Damages Fraud Pleading Amendment of Defence on Appeal

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jones & Lyttle

Appellant (plaintiff)

Mackie

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Contract Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether suspension of work by owner for lack of funds constituted breach entitling contractor to damages
  2. 2 Whether the contract was rescinded by the respondent
  3. 3 Whether a finding of fraud may be relied on by an appellate court when fraud was not pleaded or raised at trial or in the notice of appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellate Division erred in reversing the trial judgment on the basis of fraud that had not been pleaded or put in issue; the appeal was allowed and the trial judgment (awarding damages subject to a reference regarding the estimated cost) was restored, because the suspension for lack of funds amounted to a breach entitling the contractor to damages and unpleaded fraud could not justify rescission.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of Appellate Division reversed and trial judgment reinstated

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs to the appellant
  • Judgment of the Appellate Division set aside and the trial judgment of Stuart J. restored