Print

74 out of 726 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

Adams v. Lindsell, [1818] EWHC KB J59.

Postal Rule: Contract is made when mail is sent, not received.

Ashley Smith Inquest(s)

n/a

While not a court case, this ordeal has had a major impact on legislation, sentencing, and policy approaches to law.

Attorney General of British Columbia v Deeks Sand and Grave Co, [1956] SCR 336.

A compromise of a serious claim if honestly made can be a valuable consideration, whether or not the claim could have been successful. In other words, a party can in effect surrender potential rights by agreeing to a claim which subsequent events show to be unenforceable in law.

If parties had an honest belief that there could be a possible successful legal action then the agreement not to go to court is good consideration.

B.D.C. Ltd. v. Hofstrand Farms Ltd., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 228

If duty of care was extended to the respondent, based on idea that this respondent should be within the reasonable contemplation of the appellant, there would be no logical/practical limitations.

Added reliance component. Uses Hedley Bryne - Finds that there was no reliance of respondent on the appellant based on the representations or undertaking of the appellant.

Duty of Care being applied would lead to a class of plaintiffs being created and leading to a spectra of indeterminate liability. This would be unacceptable.

Bank of NS v Maclellan

With acceptable consideration, a debtor can pay less than the full amount owed to a creditor (an exception to the rule established in the decision of Foakes v Beer).

Blair v Western Mutual Benefit Association, [1972] 4 WWR 284.

(1) A party must intend to make an offer for it to be an offer capable of acceptance, and it must be communicated to the party to whom it is directed in order to prove that the offeror intended to be legally bound.

(2) It makes no difference if the offeree knows about the offer by another means – it must be deliberately communicated to them by the offeror.

Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. v Saint John Ship Building Ltd., (1997), 153 D.L.R. (4th) 385 (S.C.C.)

According to Justice McLachlin, there is the problem of indeterminate liability that must be overcome and if not that is sufficient reason to deny a duty of care under the circumstances.

The plaintiffs tried to argue that there were factors that addressed the problem of indeterminacy in this case, but McLachlin was not prepared to accept any of them. There simply was no rationale basis to allow recovery to the plaintiffs and to deny it to others (e.g. other investors, employees and suppliers of the rig).

Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 335 (1871)

A member of the Judiciary cannot be sued in a civil tort claim

Brown v Alberta (1999), 177 DLR (4th) 349 (Alta. CA)

(1) A case must have a legal issue for the court to have jurisdiction to hear and rule on the case.

(2) There was no justiciability for the courts to rule on the case.

Canada (Attorney General) v Mossop, [1993] 1 SCR 554

(1) Only identified grounds can be pursued in a human rights claim.

(2) Definitions in human rights legislation are generally interpreted broadly, but the definition given by Parliament in the statute has a good deal of authority in the court's decision on what falls under the definition and what does not.

Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 53, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471.

The CHRC/CHRT cannot award costs as part of a decision that they have rendered.

Caroline v Roper

Fee simple subject to a condition subsequent = Defeasible Interest

Determinable fee simple subject to a right of reverter = Determinable Interest

Carr v Canadian Northern Railway Co. (1907)

Action can be constituted as acceptance with the proper conditions.

Charlebois v. Baril, [1928] S.C.R. 88

Using the post to accept a hand-delivered offer is not proper acceptance as postal acceptance cannot be implied by the nature of the transaction and conduct of the parties

City of Westminster Properties v Mudd, [1958] 2 All 733.

Consideration can be identified through promises in a contract.