Martin Developments Ltd. v. D'Arcy

Martin Developments Ltd. v. D'Arcy

The claim was dismissed because the court characterized the project as a fixed-price contract for the original scope and a cost-plus type arrangement for additional work but the claimant failed to produce records segregating fixed-price work from additional work and therefore failed to prove any additional amount owing; burden lay with claimant to prove entitlement.

Citation
2006 NSSM 22
Parties
Claimant: Martin Developments Limited; Defendant: Thomas D'Arcy; Defendant: Mildred D'Arcy
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Contract / Decision
Outcome
Claim dismissed; defendants' counterclaim allowed in part
Legal Topics
Cost Plus Contract, Fixed Price Contract, Contract Formation, Contract Variation, Objective Test, Burden of Proof, Counterclaim, Quantum Meruit
Source Language
English
Contract Law Construction Law Civil Litigation Cost Plus Contract Fixed Price Contract Contract Formation Contract Variation Objective Test +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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Developments Limited

Claimant

Thomas D'Arcy

Defendant

Mildred D'Arcy

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Contract / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the original $40,000 fixed-price contract was replaced or varied into a cost-plus contract
  2. 2 Whether a new fixed-price contract for approximately $70,000 (or $90,000) was formed
  3. 3 Whether claimant proved the amount allegedly owing given mixed invoicing and lack of allocation between original and additional work

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was dismissed because the court characterized the project as a fixed-price contract for the original scope and a cost-plus type arrangement for additional work but the claimant failed to produce records segregating fixed-price work from additional work and therefore failed to prove any additional amount owing; burden lay with claimant to prove entitlement.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; defendants' counterclaim allowed in part

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Order Martin Developments Limited pay Thomas and Mildred D'Arcy $285.25