Ketza Construction Corp. v. Mickey, 2000 YKCA 1
Judge | McEachern, C.J.B.C., Southin and Donald, JJ.A. |
Court | Court of Appeal (Yukon Territory) |
Case Date | February 11, 2000 |
Jurisdiction | Yukon |
Citations | 2000 YKCA 1;(2000), 139 B.C.A.C. 161 (YukCA) |
Ketza Constr. Corp. v. Mickey (2000), 139 B.C.A.C. 161 (YukCA);
227 W.A.C. 161
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2000] B.C.A.C. TBEd. SE.013
Ketza Construction Corp. (plaintiff/respondent) v. Joyce Margaret Mickey and Glenn Mickey (defendants/appellants)
(YU00411; 2000 YKCA 1)
Indexed As: Ketza Construction Corp. v. Mickey
Yukon Court of Appeal
McEachern, C.J.B.C., Southin and Donald, JJ.A.
March 6, 2000.
Summary:
The plaintiff agreed to construct a "luxury" house for the defendants. Differences arose as to the cost of the work and payment for it. The plaintiff left the site at the defendants' request. The defendants completed construction with other trades at substantial additional cost. The plaintiff sued the defendants for compensation based on quantum meruit. The defendants counterclaimed for damages for negligent misrepresentation.
The Yukon Supreme Court allowed the plaintiff's claim based on quantum meruit and fixed the amount of the judgment. The court dismissed the counterclaim. The defendants appealed.
The Yukon Court of Appeal allowed the appeal by reducing the amount of the judgment.
Building Contracts - Topic 3544
Liability of builder - Duty to owner - Duty to provide skill and judgment - The Yukon Court of Appeal, per Southin, J.A., opined that where there was no oral fixed price contract and no written contract, a builder who failed to keep an owner apprised timeously on all aspects of the costs being incurred might be in breach of the implied obligation to use reasonable care and skill - See paragraph 26.
Building Contracts - Topic 4002
Quantum meruit claims - Circumstances where doctrine applied - The plaintiff agreed to construct a "luxury" house for the defendants without a written contract - There was no oral fixed price contract - Differences arose as to the cost of the work and payment for it - The plaintiff left the site at the defendants' request - The defendants completed construction with other trades at substantial additional cost - The Yukon Court of Appeal affirmed that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for its services on quantum meruit - See paragraphs 3 to 13.
Building Contracts - Topic 4121
Quantum meruit claims - Elements of claim - General - The Yukon Court of Appeal stated that a claim on a quantum meruit may arise where there was (1) an express agreement to pay a reasonable sum, (2) a contract but no price was fixed and (3) a quasi-contract which might occur if work was carried on while negotiations were underway but the negotiations failed to result in a contract - See paragraph 12.
Building Contracts - Topic 4168
Quantum meruit claims - Measure of compensation - Determination of - Benefit to owner - The plaintiff agreed to construct a "luxury" house for the defendants without a written contract - There was no oral fixed price contract - Differences arose as to the cost of the work and payment for it - The plaintiff left the site at the defendants' request - The defendants completed construction with other trades at substantial additional cost - The Yukon Court of Appeal held that in calculating the worth of the job, the trial judge erred in adding 12 percent for overhead and fee to the costs incurred by the plaintiff in constructing the house - See paragraphs 14 to 21.
Cases Noticed:
Powell v. Streatham Manor Nursing Home, [1935] A.C. 243 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 10].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Keating on Building Contracts (6th Ed. 1995), p. 84 [para. 12].
Counsel:
B. O'Ferrall and J.R. Laluk, for the appellants;
F.R. Eadie, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard before McEachern, C.J.B.C., Southin and Donald, JJ.A., of the Yukon Court of Appeal, at Vancouver, British Columbia, on February 11, 2000. The decision of the court was delivered on March 6, 2000, by Southin, J.A.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Infinity Steel Inc. v. B & C Steel Erectors Inc. et al., (2011) 304 B.C.A.C. 227 (CA)
...3 S.C.R. 575; 327 N.R. 100; 206 B.C.A.C. 99; 338 W.A.C. 99; 2004 SCC 75, refd to. [para. 20]. Ketza Construction Corp. v. Mickey (2000), 139 B.C.A.C. 161; 227 W.A.C. 161; 2000 YTCA 1, refd to. [para. Bond Development Corp. v. Esquimalt (Township) (2006), 226 B.C.A.C. 227; 373 W.A.C. 227; 20......
-
Litt et al. v. Gill, [2015] B.C.T.C. Uned. 491 (SC)
...that means "the amount it deserves", or "what the job is worth": Ketza Construction Corp. v. Mickey , 2000 YKCA 4 at para. 13, 139 B.C.A.C. 161. Accordingly, if a defendant has requested and freely accepted services, the general rule is that he must pay for the reasonable value of those ser......
-
Gichuru v. Ash et al., [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 849 (SC)
...that means "the amount it deserves", or "what the job is worth": Ketza Construction Corp. v. Mickey , 2000 YKCA 4 at para. 13, 139 B.C.A.C. 161. Accordingly, if a defendant has requested and freely accepted services, the general rule is that he must pay for the reasonable value of those ser......
-
Bonilla v. Ciurariu, 2008 BCSC 925
...to be uncertain and therefore unenforceable: Ketza Construction Corp. v. Mickey (1999), 45 C.L.R. (2d) 246 (Y.T.S.C.), varied on appeal, 2000 YKCA 1 (CanLii), 2000 YTCA 4 (QL). [74] In this case, while the parties appeared to have agreed in general that Mr. Ciurariu would complete the renov......
-
Litt et al. v. Gill, [2015] B.C.T.C. Uned. 491 (SC)
...that means "the amount it deserves", or "what the job is worth": Ketza Construction Corp. v. Mickey , 2000 YKCA 4 at para. 13, 139 B.C.A.C. 161. Accordingly, if a defendant has requested and freely accepted services, the general rule is that he must pay for the reasonable value of those ser......
-
Gichuru v. Ash et al., [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 849 (SC)
...that means "the amount it deserves", or "what the job is worth": Ketza Construction Corp. v. Mickey , 2000 YKCA 4 at para. 13, 139 B.C.A.C. 161. Accordingly, if a defendant has requested and freely accepted services, the general rule is that he must pay for the reasonable value of those ser......
-
Bonilla v. Ciurariu, 2008 BCSC 925
...to be uncertain and therefore unenforceable: Ketza Construction Corp. v. Mickey (1999), 45 C.L.R. (2d) 246 (Y.T.S.C.), varied on appeal, 2000 YKCA 1 (CanLii), 2000 YTCA 4 (QL). [74] In this case, while the parties appeared to have agreed in general that Mr. Ciurariu would complete the renov......
-
Narduzzi et al. v. Richardson, [2009] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1254
...the work to be performed". In support of that submission, the defendant relies on Ketza Construction Corp. v. Mickey , 2000 YTCA 4, 139 B.C.A.C. 161. [226] The defendant contends that "a good deal of the work" performed by the plaintiff was incorrectly performed either because it was not co......