Rockland Industries, Inc. v. Amerada Minerals Corporation of Canada, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 2 (1980)

Supreme Court of Canada

Linked as:

Extract

Rockland Industries, Inc. v. Amerada Minerals Corporation of Canada, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 2 (1980)

Supreme Court of Canada

Rockland Industries, Inc. v. Amerada Minerals Corporation of Canada, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 2

Date: 1980-03-18

Rockland Industries, Inc. (Plaintiff) Appellant;

and

Amerada Minerals Corporation of Canada Ltd. (Defendant) Respondent.

1979: November 1; 1980: March 18.

Present: Martland, Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz and Estey JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ALBERTA, APPELLATE DIVISION

Contracts-Agency-Agent clothed with actual authority to negotiate for sale of sulphur and to effect its sale-Curtailment of agent's real authority effected without knowledge of purchaser-Representation of authority by principal relied on by purchaser-Refusal to supply promised sulphur-Breach of contract-Damages.

This appeal arose out of a claim made by the appellant against the respondent for damages resulting from the respondent's refusal to deliver 50,000 tons of sulphur to the appellant pursuant to a contract to sell and deliver the same to the appellant, which the appellant claimed was made between the parties.

In seeking to effect a purchase of sulphur, the appellant was put into contact with one Kurtz who was in the employ of the respondent's parent corporation as manager of petrochemicals and specialty products, responsible, inter alia, for sales of sulphur. Kurtz conducted the negotiations for the respondent, including the terms of sale. On September 5, 1974, in a telephone conversation between Kurtz on the one hand and two negotiators for the appellant on the other (Powers and Leaderman), two minor objections to matters discussed in an earlier telephone conversation were raised by Kurtz. Leaderman, on behalf of the appellant, agreed to the matters suggested by Kurtz and Kurtz then said "We have a deal". When asked when the formal contract would be ready, Kurtz advised that that was a rubber stamp matter, that there was no possibility of a holdup.

In the meantime and before the telephone conversation of ...

See the full content of this document