page 122

owner within 5 days of an architects certificate specifying the value of payment.

•The contract also stated that if not paid within 7 days, the contractor could terminate the contract.

•Instead of making one payment promptly, the owner requested the corporate seal of a subcontractor affixed to a document that supports the architects certificate.

•The contractor then indicated he would obtain the seal.

•The contractor did not give the sealed document to the owner, and as a result was not paid within the allowed period.

•The contractor used the strict wording the terminate the contract.

•In the resulting suit the court maintained that the contractor had implicitly lead the owner to believe that the due date (including the termination clause) had been extended. Therefore an “equitable estoppel” of the clause was granted.

5.7.57 Permutit Co. v. Borrowman

Location: ? Court: Year: ?

Importance: a tangible (demonstrable) idea is required for a patent Details:

• The court said that an idea must be reduced to a definite and useful form before it can be patented.

5.7.58 Photo Production Ltd. v. Securicor Transport Ltd.

Location: England Court:

Year: 1980

Importance: an example of a failed fundamental breach (rejected the concept of fundamental breach)

Details:

•A security contract was set for watching a manufacturing company at night.

•During one of the patrols an employee started a fire that destroyed the factory.

•In the resulting lawsuit it was noticed that the security contract contained a clause that specifically exempted liability for (among other things) an employee that negligently starts a fire.

•The court ruled that the exemption clause reasonably predicted the potential loss, and that there was no fundamental breach.

•In effect this overturned the concept of fundamental breach.

page 123

5.7.59 Pigott Construction Co. Ltd. v. W.J. Crowe Ltd.

Location: Ontario Court:

Year: 1961

Importance: refers to precedents of implied terms in contracts and a breach of a warranty (nonessential) term as grounds for damages, not termination.

Details:

•A construction contract was made, including some minor terms requesting expeditious work, and to provide heat during winter.

•The plaintiff argued that the two minor conditions had not been satisfied, and so the contract should be discharged.

•The court said that the breaches had not prevented substantial performance, and therefore are not a reason to discharge the contract, but are grounds for payment of damages.

•The court also stated that they would not imply terms into a contract unless it was obvious they should be there.

5.7.60 Pirelli General Cable Works Ltd. v. Oscar Faber and Partners

Location: England

Court:

Year: 1982

Importance: reverses the precedent set in [Sparham Souter]

Details:

•A chimney 160 feet high was built using precast concrete.

•An inner lining of a new material was used. The material was not suitable and cracks developed and the chimney had to be replaced.

•They stated that the period of limitation started from the date the damage occurred. They said that legislation is required, and that the Sparham-Souter decision may lead to unfairly long limitation periods.

5.7.61 Pym v. Campbell

Location: ?

Court:

Year: ?

Importance: parol evidence rule exception

Details:

•An agreement for sharing the ownership of a machine was made.

•Two individuals had agreed that invention ownership rights would be purchased, but an unwritten condition was that it would be approved by two engineers first.

•When consulted only one of the two engineers approved of the invention.

•As a result the case went to trial.

page 124

• The judge ruled that because of the condition, the contract had never been entered into, effectively sidestepping the parol evidence rule.

5.7.62 The Queen et. al. v. Commercial Credit Corp. Ltd.

Location: Nova Scotia

Court:

Year: 1983

Importance: example of mail/courier for a contract and governing law

Details:

•An offer of conditional sale was prepared by Commercial Credit as an agent to the parties in the contract.

•The offer was sent out of Nova Scotia to the offeree. And the acceptance returned by courier.

•Commercial Credit attempted to apply the Installment Payments Contract Act of Nova Scotia, but this was disallowed because the contract was made outside the province.

5.7.63 Ramsay and Penno v. The King

Location: ?

Court: ?

Year: ?

Importance: recognizes mistakes as separate from negligence

Details:

•the crown was sued alleging that poor dam design lead to flooding of lands

•the statement said that engineers are “not infallible, nor is perfection expected, and the most that can be required of them is the exercise of reasonable care and prudence in light of scientific knowledge at the time, of which they should be aware...” (Marston, pg. 30)

5.7.64 Regina v. Margison and Associates, Limited

Location: Ontario Court:

Year: 1955

Importance: recognizes the legal overlap of engineers and architects duties Details:

•An engineering firm was charged with acting as architects

•In reviewing the acts the court found too much overlap to distinguish between the duties of the engineers and the architects.

page 125

• The court ruled that clients should be free to contract who they wish.

5.7.65 Rex v. Bentall

Location: British Columbia

Court:

Year: 1939

Importance: an engineer can be convicted for doing architectural work

Details:

•An engineer had prepared plans for a theatre and then supervised construction.

•He was later convicted of practicing as an architect.

5.7.66 Rivtow Marine Ltd. v. Washington Iron Works et. al.

Location: Canada Court:

Year: 1973

Importance: economic losses caused by a defective product can be recovered Details:

•Rivtow chartered a barge that had a crane manufactured by Washington (a U.S. company)

•An identical crane manufactured by Washington had been used in a similar situation before, and it had collapsed. An investigation determined that there were structural defects in the crane Rivtow had chartered that were similar to those in the crane that had collapsed.

•The defendants were previously aware that design problems left the cranes prone to cracking, but they did not warn the plaintiff or attempt repairs.

•As a result of the failure to warn, the defendants were found liable for economic losses while the crane was being repaired.

5.7.67 Robert Simpson Co. Ltd. v. Foundation Co.

Location: Ontario

Court:

Year: 1981

Importance: upheld the time of action principle of [Sparham Souter]

Details:

•Some ceiling anchors were negligently designed, manufactured and installed. These were also misrepresented as adequate.

•More than 6 years after the work the problems were detected, therefore the court was asked to consider the limitation from the detection of damages.