Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of Appeal set aside a $12 million contract award, found no certainty on the fee term, and substituted a $2.7 million quantum meruit award.
The court found a binding contract for Unit 37 arose when Retire West sent the February 8, 2022 contract and note, and the plaintiffs signed and returned them.
Leave to appeal was dismissed in a dispute over summary trial suitability and alleged loan versus equalization-payment agreements.
The Court of Appeal held a binding contract existed, corrected the trial judge’s finding that 1,207 furs from invoice #2491 were delivered (they were not), adjusted the damages calculation by (a) including the additional undelivered units, (b) removing the 50% reduction for alleged failure to mitigate, and (c) using the contracted quality metric of 9 strips per fur while upholding the trial judge's 10% profit margin; the court awarded punitive damages of $25,000 and otherwise left intact the trial judge’s awards for delivered invoices and costs where no error was shown.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed a summary judgment application to enforce an alleged settlement, finding no binding agreement on tax treatment despite agreement on a release.
The contract became binding when the appellants waived conditions and paid the second deposit on January 26, 2022; the respondent's late acceptance did not terminate the agreement because the appellants elected to treat the contract as continuing, and the parties' subsequent conduct was admissible to show that election; accordingly the respondent was entitled to expectation damages for breach, as quantified below.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal over a December 2016 land-assembly agreement, holding it was binding despite disputes about GP7 control and later specific performance terms.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial judge's finding that a binding contract was formed by the September 27 offer and October 4 acceptance because the essential terms (price and payment structure) were agreed and the July 31 "without prejudice" email did not negate formation; the appellate standard was palpable and overriding error and none was shown.
Source excerpt
There was a binding verbal contract and the Defendant breached it by refusing to complete delivery from Memphis to Scottsdale; however both parties were equally at fault (50/50) due to the Claimant's conduct and failure to mitigate, so damages were assessed and apportioned accordingly resulting in a partial recovery for the Claimant.
Source excerpt
The court found a contract existed based on the parties' communications and Estimate #12 with an effective price cap of $9,000; the Defendant abandoned the project and breached that contract; the proper remedy is damages equal to the difference between the amounts paid ($14,227.50) and the assessed value of partial performance ($4,697.06), resulting in damages of $9,531.44 plus filing costs of $199.35, totaling $9,730.79, payable by the Defendant to the Claimant.
Source excerpt
Explore more
