Samuel v. Black Lake Asbestos and Chrome Co.

Samuel v. Black Lake Asbestos and Chrome Co.

The contracts remained in force after November 1, 1917 by mutual forbearance; there was no substituted contract from November conversations; the seller’s clear repudiation on June 21, 1918 was the date of breach; damages are assessed as the difference between the contract price and the market/value of the ore at the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1921) 62 SCR 472
Parties
Appellants/plaintiffs: Frank Samuel and Others; Respondent/defendant: Black Lake Asbestos and Chrome Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 October 1921
Procedural Posture
Contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the trial judge restored; costs awarded to the appellants; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Time for Delivery, Extension/forbearance, Repudiation, Measure of Damages, Substituted Contract, Mitigation/obligation to Purchase Replacements, Instalment Deliveries
Source Language
english
Contract Time for Delivery Extension/forbearance Repudiation Measure of Damages Substituted Contract Mitigation/obligation to Purchase Replacements Instalment Deliveries

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frank Samuel and Others

Appellants/plaintiffs

Black Lake Asbestos and Chrome Company

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seller had breached the contract before June 21, 1918
  2. 2 Whether conversations after November 1, 1917 created a substituted contract or merely extended time by forbearance
  3. 3 Proper date and measure of damages for non-delivery

Ratio Decidendi

The contracts remained in force after November 1, 1917 by mutual forbearance; there was no substituted contract from November conversations; the seller’s clear repudiation on June 21, 1918 was the date of breach; damages are assessed as the difference between the contract price and the market/value of the ore at the date of repudiation, and the buyers were not obliged to procure replacements during the period of forbearance.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the trial judge restored; costs awarded to the appellants; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and judgment of the trial judge restored with costs to the appellants.
  • Cross-appeal dismissed with costs.