Ghaed v. Telus Communications Co.

Ghaed v. Telus Communications Co.

Someone authorised to use the business e-mail accepted the electronic bundle on July 22, 2010; Telus delivered the contract for BPCPA purposes and the contract was enforceable by performance; the January 2012 exchange created a complete binding settlement (offer, acceptance, consideration) and plaintiff unilaterally...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2013 BCSC 1675
Parties
Plaintiff Individual: Ali Ghaed; Plaintiff Corporation: M.A. Ghaed Medical Inc. (now M.A. Ghaed Investments Inc.); Defendant: Telus Communications Company
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract and Consumer Protection / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claims dismissed; judgment for defendant on its counterclaim for the settlement amount plus interest; parties given liberty to apply on costs.
Legal Topics
Enforceability of Electronic Signatures, Delivery Provisions of Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, Early Termination Fees, Validity and Repudiation of Settlement Agreements, Agent Acceptance of Contract
Source Language
english
Contract Law Consumer Protection Law Agency Law Settlement Law Electronic Commerce Enforceability of Electronic Signatures Delivery Provisions of Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act Early Termination Fees +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ali Ghaed

Plaintiff Individual

M.A. Ghaed Medical Inc. (now M.A. Ghaed Investments Inc.)

Plaintiff Corporation

Telus Communications Company

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract and Consumer Protection / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an electronic Business Value Bundle contract was validly delivered and formed between the parties
  2. 2 Whether provisions of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA) entitled plaintiff to cancel without liability
  3. 3 Whether the January 2012 settlement agreement was a binding contract or merely an agreement to agree

Ratio Decidendi

Someone authorised to use the business e-mail accepted the electronic bundle on July 22, 2010; Telus delivered the contract for BPCPA purposes and the contract was enforceable by performance; the January 2012 exchange created a complete binding settlement (offer, acceptance, consideration) and plaintiff unilaterally attempted to add conditions and thereby repudiated the settlement which Telus did not accept; accordingly plaintiff's substantive and corollary claims fail and defendant is entitled to the settlement amount judgment.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claims dismissed; judgment for defendant on its counterclaim for the settlement amount plus interest; parties given liberty to apply on costs.

Orders

  • Judgment for Telus Communications Company against M.A. Ghaed Medical Inc. in the amount of 1854.45 CAD plus Court Order Interest from 2012-02-01 to date of judgment
  • Claims by Ali Ghaed and the corporate plaintiff dismissed