Digest: Hailink Dent Removal Inc. v Kindersley Mainline Motor Products Ltd., 2018 SKQB 138

Date:May 03, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 138

Docket Number: QB17526 , QBG 1590/16 JCS

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-05-03

Judges:

  • Smith

Subjects:

  • Contract Law � Breach of Contract � Nonpayment
  • Civil Procedure � Queen�s Bench Rules, Rule 7-2

Digest: The plaintiff applied for summary judgment pursuant to Queen�s Bench rules 7-2 to 7-5 against the defendant. The defendant, a car dealership, suffered hail damage to 118 vehicles in July 2016 and arranged for and contacted its insurer who in turn engaged a claim adjuster to assess the damage. The adjuster hired an automotive hail repair company to act on behalf of the insurer in preparing estimates. The plaintiff, a hail catastrophe restoration company, contacted the defendant�s general manager with a proposal to repair the vehicles using its process known as paintless dent repair (PDR). The process would be faster and less expensive than conventional auto body repair. The manager authorized the plaintiff to start repairing vehicles immediately without making a written contract. After 104 vehicles had been repaired, a dispute arose because the defendant was upset about the prices that the plaintiff was charging its insurer. As a result of the dispute, the plaintiff left the site to work elsewhere. The plaintiff brought its action for payment, maintaining that there was an agreement between the parties as to price and that it was to be paid what the defendant�s insurer estimated to be the cost of repair. The defendant argued that there was no agreement and the plaintiff should be paid per quantum meruit.
HELD: The plaintiff was granted summary judgment. The court found that the oral contract was enforceable. Its terms included that the plaintiff would receive payment from the insurer based upon the estimates prepared by the other repair company. The court left the matter of the amount owed to the plaintiff to be dealt with by the parties. If they could not agree, the matter could be returned to the court.

...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP