Litt et al. v. Gill
| Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
| Court | Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada) |
| Judge | Fenlon, J. |
| Citation | [2015] B.C.T.C. Uned. 491 (SC),2015 BCSC 491,[2015] B.C.T.C. Uned. 491 |
| Date | 31 March 2015 |
| Subject Matter | BUILDING CONTRACTS,SALE OF LAND,CONTRACTS |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
2 practice notes
-
Litt et al. v. Gill
...term of the agreement respecting completion date was missing. For both main reasons she found that the agreement was unenforceable: 2015 BCSC 491. [2] On appeal, the standard of review of questions relating to the interpretation of an agreement is highly deferential: Sattva Capital Corp. v.......
-
Yang v Li
...if the drafting party's interpretation was the preferred one, it would have been drafted in a manner that makes it clear: Litt v. Gill, 2015 BCSC 491 at para. 67 I do not agree with Ms. Li's contention that contra proferentem should apply. This is because the doctrine applies as but one in ......
1 cases
-
Litt et al. v. Gill
...term of the agreement respecting completion date was missing. For both main reasons she found that the agreement was unenforceable: 2015 BCSC 491. [2] On appeal, the standard of review of questions relating to the interpretation of an agreement is highly deferential: Sattva Capital Corp. v.......