Hydrapower Marine Ltd. v. Ship Tara M.J. et al., (1990) 38 F.T.R. 1 (TD)

• Judge: McNair, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 06, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1990), 38 F.T.R. 1 (TD)

Hydrapower Marine v. Ship Tara MJ (1990), 38 F.T.R. 1 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Hydrapower Marine Limited (plaintiff) v. The Ship "Tara M.J." and Donna Rae Limited (defendants)

(No. T-1118-88)

Indexed As: Hydrapower Marine Ltd. v. Ship Tara M.J. et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

McNair, J.

October 15, 1990.

Summary:

The plaintiff was a Nova Scotia corporation engaged in the business of designing and installing hydraulic systems for use primarily in the fishing industry. The plaintiff sued the defendant ship and its owner for the balance owing for labour and materials incurred in installing a hydraulic system on the vessel. The defendants counterclaimed for damages for the cost of replacing defective work and materials supplied by the plaintiff.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the plaintiff's action and determined a reasonable amount owing for the inadequate hydraulic system provided. The court further allowed the defendants' counterclaim and set off the amount of the counterclaim against the amount owing to the plaintiff.

Building Contracts - Topic 2523

Payment - Compensation to builder - Implied terms - Respecting reasonable price - The plaintiff installed a hydraulic system on the defendant fishing vessel - The plaintiff sued for the balance owing for work and materials, specifically for alleged extras not covered in the contract - The ship and its owners counterclaimed for damages for the cost of replacing defective work and materials - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the contract constituted both the original written quotation and a subsequent mutual oral agreement whereby the defendants agreed to pay a reasonable price for a more expensive hydraulic system.

Building Contracts - Topic 2741

Payment - Compensation to builder - Lump sum contracts - General - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that "in entire contracts for the performance of specified work at a lump sum price, the principle is well established that a contractor can only recover that price where he has completed or substantially performed the required work, subject to any set-off or counterclaim for proven defects or omissions" - See paragraph 28.

Interest - Topic 5486

As damages (prejudgment interest) - Particular claims - Maritime matters - Admiralty - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that "in admiralty cases, interest is normally awarded as an integral part of the damages suffered by a party from the time of the injury or loss, and the discretion for awarding prejudgment interest should be refused only in exceptional cases" - See paragraph 52.

Cases Noticed:

MacDonald v. Ransome (1969), 1 N.S.R.(2d) 81 (T.D.), consd. [para. 26].

Jamieson Constr. Co. Ltd. v. Lacombe & Northwestern Ry., [1926] 2 D.L.R. 653 (Alta. C.A.), consd. [para. 27].

H. Dakin & Co. v. Lee, [1916] 1 K.B. 566, refd to. [para. 28].

Hoenig v. Isaacs, [1952] 2 All E.R. 176 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Bolton v. Mahadeva, [1972] 2 All E.R. 1322 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Fairbanks Soap Co. Ltd. v. Sheppard, [1953] 1 S.C.R. 314, refd to. [para. 28].

Webber et al. v. Havill (1964), 47 D.L.R.(2d) 36 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Fred Pierce Ltd. v. Troke (1957), 8 D.L.R.(2d) 5 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Veregen v. Red Maple Farms Ltd. (1974), 59 D.L.R.(3d) 221 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Lacroix Bros. & Co. v. Cook, [1926] 4 D.L.R. 747 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

Miller v. Advanced Farming Systems Ltd., [1969] S.C.R. 845, consd. [para. 28].

Markland Associates Ltd. v. Lohnes (1973), 11 N.S.R.(2d) 181; 5 A.P.R. 181; 33 D.L.R.(3d) 493 (S.C.), consd. [para. 28].

Nu-West Homes Ltd. v. Thunderbird Petroleums Ltd. (1975), 59 D.L.R.(3d) 292 (Alta. C.A.), dist. [para. 48].

Allen v. Pierce (1895), 3 Terr. L.R. 319, refd to. [para. 48].

Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd. v. Pickford & Black Ltd., [1972] S.C.R. 52; 20 D.L.R.(3d) 432, refd to [para. 52].

Bell Telephone Co. v. The Mar-Tirenno, [1974] 1 F.C. 294; 52 D.L.R.(3d) 702 (T.D.), affd. [1976] 1 F.C. 539; 71 D.L.R.(3d) 608 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

Davie Shipbuilding Limited and Canada Steamship Lines Limited v. Canada, Government of, et al., [1984] 1 F.C. 461; 4 D.L.R.(4th) 546; 53 N.R. 50 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

Drew Brown Ltd. v. The "Orient Trader", [1974] S.C.R. 1286, refd to. [para. 52].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Anson, Law of Contract (26th Ed.), p. 432 [para. 32].

Goldsmith, Canadian Building Contracts (3rd Ed.), generally [para. 25]; p. 93 [para. 26].

Keating, Law and Practice of Building Contracts (2nd Ed.), p. 54 [para. 26].

Counsel:

J.C. Stobie, for the plaintiff;

T.E. Hart, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Stewart, MacKeen & Covert, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the plaintiff;

McInnes, Cooper & Robertson, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the defendant.

This action was heard before McNair, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, at Halifax, Nova Scotia, March 6, 1990. The decision of McNair, J., was delivered on October 15, 1990.