London Drugs Ltd. v. Brassart and Vanwinkel, (1992) 18 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 29, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1992), 18 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC)

London Drugs Ltd. v. Brassart (1992), 18 B.C.A.C. 1 (SCC);

    31 W.A.C. 1

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

London Drugs Limited (appellant) v. Dennis Gerrard Brassart and Hank Vanwinkel (respondents) and Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd. and Federal Pioneer Limited (third parties) and General Truck Drivers and Helpers Local Union No. 31 (intervener)

(21980)

Indexed As: London Drugs Ltd. v. Brassart and Vanwinkel

Supreme Court of Canada

La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.

October 29, 1992.

Summary:

The plaintiff delivered a transformer to a warehouse company for storage pursuant to a contract, which limited the warehouseman's liability to $40. The plaintiff obtained its own all-risk insurance. Two of the warehouseman's employees negligently damaged the transformer, while moving it. The plaintiff sued the warehouseman and the employees for breach of contract and negligence.

The British Columbia Supreme Court in a judgment reported [1986] 4 W.W.R. 183; 2 B.C.L.R.(2d) 181, in allowing the action held that the warehouseman's liability was limited to $40, but that the employees were liable for the full damages of $33,955.41. The employees appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal in a judgment reported [1990] 4 W.W.R. 289; 45 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 70 D.L.R.(4th) 51; 2 C.C.L.T.(2d) 161; 31 C.C.E.L. 67, allowed the employees' appeal, limiting their liability to $40. The plaintiff appealed and the employees cross-appealed, submitting that they were not liable at all.

The Supreme Court of Canada, per Iacobucci, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and Cory, JJ., concurring) and McLachlin, J., dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, holding that the employees owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, but were entitled to the benefit of the limitation of liability clause in their employer's contract with the plaintiff. See paragraphs 1 to 142.

La Forest, J., dissenting in part, would have ruled that the employees were not liable at all for torts performed within the scope of their duties to their employer, which was vicariously liable to the plaintiff for their actions. See paragraphs 143 to 295.

Editor's Note: In the print version of this case, an addendum was subsequently added amending paragraph 99. See 147 N.R. 336; 21 B.C.A.C. 159; 37 W.A.C. 159. In this web version of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision, paragraph 99 has been amended and is correctly worded.

Contracts - Topic 9001

Rights and liabilities of strangers to contract - General - Privity of contract - Exceptions - The plaintiff delivered a transformer to a warehouse company for storage pursuant to a contract, which limited the warehouseman's liability to $40 - The plaintiff obtained its own all-risk insurance - Two of the warehouseman's employees negligently damaged the transformer, while moving it - The plaintiff sued the employees in negligence - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the employees owed a duty of care to the plaintiff as their employer's customer, but that they were entitled to the benefit of the limitation of liability clause in their employer's contract with the plaintiff - See paragraphs 1 to 142.

Contracts - Topic 9006

Rights and liabilities of strangers to contract - General - Presumed intent to benefit employees of party - [See Contracts - Topic 9001 ].

Courts - Topic 28

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - The common law - Modification or extension of common law rule - The Supreme Court of Canada in relaxing the doctrine of privity of contract held that it had the power and the duty "to make incremental changes to the common law to see that it reflects the emerging needs and values of our society", but should leave major or far-reaching changes to the legislature - See paragraphs 84 to 86, 101, 137 to 141 - La Forest, J., in dissent was willing to make a wider change, stating that judges should change judge-made rules to meet the needs of the times and may be, as in this case, better placed than the legislature to do it - See paragraph 148.

Master and Servant - Topic 4603

Liability of servant - To third parties - Duty of care - [See Contracts - Topic 9001 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 4604

Liability of servant - To third parties - Where master's liability to third party contractually limited - [See Contracts - Topic 9001 ].

Cases Noticed:

Scruttons Ltd. v. Midland Silicones Ltd., [1962] A.C. 446 (H.L.), consd. [paras. 12, 48, 60, 175, 230].

New Zealand Shipping Co. v. A.M. Satterthwaite & Co. (The Eurymedon), [1975] A.C. 154 (P.C.), consd. [paras. 12, 36, 83].

Greenwood Shopping Plaza Ltd. v. Beattie, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 228; 32 N.R. 163; 39 N.S.R.(2d) 119; 71 A.P.R. 119, dist. [paras. 12, 27, 73, 260].

Miida Electronics Inc. v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. and ITO-International Terminal Operators Ltd., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 752; 68 N.R. 241, consd. [paras. 12, 219].

Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728 (H.L.), appld. [paras. 13, 136, 155, 272].

Nielson v. Kamloops, Hughes and Hughes, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1; 10 D.L.R.(4th) 641; [1984] 5 W.W.R. 1, appld. [paras. 13, 155, 160, 170, 272].

Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 14, 152, 229].

Junior Books Ltd. v. Veitchi Co., [1983] 1 A.C. 520 (H.L.), consd. [paras. 14, 31, 135, 279].

Norwich City Council v. Harvey, [1989] 1 All E.R. 1180 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 14, 156].

Pacific Associates Inc. v. Baxter, [1989] 2 All E.R. 159 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 14, 19, 152, 156].

Canadian General Electric Co. v. Pickford and Black Ltd., [1971] S.C.R. 41, dist. [paras. 27, 71].

Cominco Ltd. v. Bilton, [1971] S.C.R. 413, consd. [paras. 27, 270].

Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1964] A.C. 465 (H.L.), consd. [paras. 31, 254, 279].

Hofstrand Farms Ltd. v. B.D.C. Ltd., [1986] 1 S.C.R. 228; 65 N.R. 261, consd. [paras. 31, 159, 279].

Sealand of The Pacific v. Robert C. McHaffie Ltd. (1974), 51 D.L.R.(3d) 702 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [paras. 32, 231, 253, 280, 284, 288].

Moss v. Richardson Greenshields of Canada Ltd., [1989] 3 W.W.R. 50; 56 Man.R.(2d) 230 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 32, 243, 280, 285].

R.M. & R. Log Ltd. v. Texada Towing Co. (1967), 62 D.L.R.(2d) 744 (Ex. Ct.), dist. [para. 32].

Northwestern Mutual Insurance Co. v. J.T. O'Bryan & Co. (1974), 51 D.L.R.(3d) 693 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [paras. 34, 217, 253].

Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Guest (1979), 10 C.C.L.T. 256 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 34].

East Kootenay Community College v. Nixon & Browning (1988), 28 C.L.R. 189 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [paras. 34, 234, 256].

Ataya v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. (1988), 34 C.C.L.I. 307 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [paras. 34, 234, 258].

Elder, Dempster & Co. v. Paterson Zochonis & Co., [1924] A.C. 522 (H.L.), consd. [para. 41].

Dyck v. Manitoba Snowmobile Association Inc. and Wood, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 589; 58 N.R. 144; 35 Man.R.(2d) 22, consd. [para. 43].

Crocker v. Sundance Northwest Resorts Ltd., [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1186; 86 N.R. 241; 29 O.A.C. 1, consd. [paras. 43, 133].

Tweddle v. Atkinson (1861), 1 B. & S. 393; 121 E.R. 762, consd. [para. 48].

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Selfridge & Co., [1915] A.C. 847 (H.L.), consd. [para. 48].

Coulls v. Bagot's Executor and Trustee Co., [1967] Aust. L.R. 385 (H.C.), consd. [para. 48].

Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd. v. River Douglas Catchment Board, [1949] 2 K.B. 500, consd. [para. 60].

Drive Yourself Hire Co. (London) Ltd. v. Strutt, [1954] 1 Q.B. 250, consd. [para. 60].

Adler v. Dickson, [1955] 1 Q.B. 158, consd. [paras. 60, 230].

Beswick v. Beswick, [1966] Ch. 538 (C.A.), consd. [para. 60].

Beswick v. Beswick, [1967] 2 All E.R. 1197 (H.L.), consd. [para. 61].

Olsson v. Dyson (1969), 120 C.L.R. 365 (Aust. H.C.), consd. [para. 61].

Woodar Investment Development Ltd. v. Wimpey Construction U.K. Ltd., [1980] 1 All E.R. 571 (H.L.), consd. [para. 61].

Swain v. The Law Society, [1983] 1 A.C. 598 (H.L.), consd. [para. 61].

Trident General Insurance Co. v. McNiece Brothers Pty. Ltd. (1988), 80 A.L.R. 574 (H.C. Aust.), consd. [para. 62].

Lawrence v. Fox (1859), 20 N.Y. 268 (C.A.), consd. [para. 69].

Choate, Hall & Stewart v. SCA Services Inc. (1979), 392 N.E.2d 1045 (Mass. S.C.), consd. [para. 69].

Robert C. Herd & Co. v. Krawill Machinery Corp. (1959), 359 U.S. 297, refd to. [para. 72].

Salmond and Spraggon (Australia) Pty. Ltd. v. Port Jackson Stevedoring Pty. Ltd. (The "New York Star"), [1980] 3 All E.R. 257 (P.C.), consd. [para. 78].

Watkins v. Olafson et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 750; 100 N.R. 161; 61 Man.R.(2d) 81, consd. [paras. 84, 141].

R. v. Salituro, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 654; 131 N.R. 161; 50 O.A.C. 125, consd. [para. 84].

Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse and Cordon, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147; 69 N.R. 321; 75 N.S.R.(2d) 109; 186 A.P.R. 109; 31 D.L.R.(4th) 481, consd. [paras. 93, 152, 178, 234].

J. Nunes Diamonds Ltd. v. Dominion Electric Protection Co., [1972] S.C.R. 769, consd. [paras. 95, 167].

Mayfair Fabrics v. Henley (1968), 244 A. 2d 344 (N.J.), consd. [para. 105].

Employers Casualty Co. v. Wainwright (1970), 473 P.2d 181 (Colo. C.A.)(cert. denied), consd. [para. 105].

Canadian Pacific Hotels Ltd. v. Bank of Montreal, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 711; 77 N.R. 161; 21 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 129].

Lefebvre v. HOJ Industries Ltd.; Machtinger v. HOJ Industries Ltd., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 986; 136 N.R. 40; 53 O.A.C. 306, refd to. [para. 129].

Pacific Associates Inc. v. Baxter, [1990] 1 Q.B. 993 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 131].

Car and General Insurance Corp. v. Seymour, [1956] S.C.R. 322, consd. [para. 133].

Manolakos v. Vernon (City) et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1259; 102 N.R. 249, consd. [paras. 156, 164].

Leigh and Sillavan Ltd. v. Aliakmon Shipping Co., [1986] A.C. 785 (H.L.); 66 N.R. 60 (H.L.), consd. [paras. 156, 179].

New Brunswick Telephone Co. v. John Maryon International Ltd. (1982), 43 N.B.R.(2d) 469; 113 A.P.R. 469; 141 D.L.R.(3d) 193 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 157, 178].

Canadian National Railway Co. et al. v. Norsk Pacific Steamship Co. Ltd. and Tug Jervis Crown et al., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 1021; 137 N.R. 241, consd. [paras. 158, 159, 163, 206, 214].

Cattle v. Stockton Waterworks Co. (1875), L.R. 10 Q.B. 453, consd. [para. 159].

District of Surrey v. Carroll-Hatch & Associates Ltd. (1979), 101 D.L.R.(3d) 218 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [para. 168].

Dominion Chain Co. v. Eastern Construction Co. (1976), 12 O.R.(2d) 201 (C.A.), consd. [para. 168].

Rivtow Marine Ltd. v. Washington Iron Works, [1974] S.C.R. 1189, consd. [para. 170].

Murphy v. Brentwood District Council, [1991] 1 A.C. 398; 113 N.R. 81 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 173].

Johnson Matthey & Co. v. Constantine Terminals Ltd., [1976] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 215 (Q.B. (Com. Ct.)), consd. [para. 175].

Kamahap Enterprises Ltd. v. Chu's Central Market Ltd. (1989), 64 D.L.R.(4th) 167 (B.C.C.A.), consd. [paras. 177, 179].

Winterbottom v. Wright (1842), 10 M. & W. 109; 152 E.R. 402, consd. [paras. 178, 230].

Staveley Iron & Chemical Co. v. Jones, [1956] A.C. 627 (H.L.), consd. [para. 187].

Kooragang Investments Pty. Ltd. v. Richardson & Wrench Ltd., [1981] 3 All E.R. 65 (P.C.), consd. [para. 191].

Morris v. Ford Motor Co., [1973] 1 Q.B. 792 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 192, 204].

Hamilton v. Farmers' Ltd., [1953] 3 D.L.R. 382 (N.S.S.C.), consd. [para. 193].

Lister v. Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co., [1957] A.C. 555 (H.L.), consd. [paras. 197, 204].

Bundesarbeitsgericht (Seventh Senate) 23 March 1983, BAG 42, consd. [para. 203].

Salomon v. Salomon & Co., [1897] A.C. 22 (H.L.), consd. [para. 213].

Co-Operators Insurance Association v. Kearney, [1965] S.C.R. 106, consd. [para. 225].

Lennard's Carrying Co. v. Asiatic Petroleum Co., [1915] A.C. 705, consd. [para. 228].

Rainbow Industrial Caterers Ltd. v. Canadian National Railway Co. (1988), 30 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273 (C.A.), consd. [para. 234].

O'Keefe v. Ontario Hydro (1980), 29 Chitty's L.J. 232, consd. [para. 247].

Constellation Hotel Corp. v. Orlando Corp. (1983), 20 A.C.W.S.(2d) 482 (Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 247].

Constellation Hotel Corp. v. Orlando Corp. (1984), 2 C.P.C.(2d) 24 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 248].

British Columbia Automobile Association v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. (1979), 14 B.C.L.R. 237 (S.C.), consd. [paras. 255, 285].

Herrington v. Kenco Mortgage & Investments Ltd. (1981), 29 B.C.L.R. 54 (S.C.), consd. [para. 255].

Great West Steel Industries Ltd. v. Arrow Transfer Co. (1977), 75 D.L.R.(3d) 424 (B.C.S.C.), consd. [para. 272].

Edgeworth Construction Ltd. v. N.D. Lea & Assoc. Ltd. (1991), 53 B.C.L.R.(2d) 180 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 285].

Statutes Noticed:

British Columbia Company Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 59, sect. 16, sect. 130 [para. 207].

Civil Code of Lower Canada, art. 1023, art. 1029 [para. 66].

Civil Code of Quebec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 1444, art. 1450 [para. 66].

Contracts (Privity) Act, 1982, S.N.Z. 1982, c. 132, sect. 2, sect. 4 [para. 68].

Engineers Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 109, sect. 10(5) [para. 257].

Ministry of Correctional Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M. 22, sect. 12 [para. 226].

Negligence Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 298, sect. 4 [para. 18].

Proceedings Against the Crown Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 27, sect. 5 [para. 226].

Property Law Act, 1969, W. Austl. Acts 1969, c. 32, sect. 11 [para. 68].

Property Law Act, 1974, Queensl. Stat. 1974, c. 76, sect. 55 [para. 68].

Warehouse Receipt Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 428, sect. 2(4), sect. 13 [paras. 17, 184].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Adams, John N., and Roger Brownsword, Privity and the Concept of a Network Contract (1990), 10 Legal Studies 12 [para. 58].

American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law, Second: Contracts 2d. (1973) [para. 69].

Anson, Sir William R., Anson's Law of Contract (25th Ed. 1979), p. 411 [para. 47].

Atiyah, P.S., An Introduction to the Law of Contract (4th Ed. 1989), pp. 394-395 [para. 202].

Atiyah, P.S., The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract (1979), p. 414 [para. 51].

Atiyah, P.S., Vicarious Liability in the Law of Torts (1967), generally [para. 225]; pp. 6-7 [paras. 186, 187]; 381-383 [para. 227]; 426 [paras. 197, 220]; 426-427 [para. 204].

Battersby, Graham, Exemption Clauses and Third Parties (1975), 25 U.T.L.J. 371 [para. 58].

Battersby, Graham, Exemption Clauses and Third Parties: Recent Decisions (1978), 28 U.T.L.J. 75 [para. 58].

Blom, Joost, Case Comment on London Drugs Ltd. v. Kuehne & Nagel International Ltd. (1991), 70 Can. Bar Rev. 156, pp. 168 [para. 31]; 173-174 [para. 241]; 174 [para. 223].

Blom, Joost, The Evolving Relationship Between Contract and Tort (1985), 10 Can. Bus. L.J. 257, pp. 273-274 [para. 241].

Blom, Joost, Fictions and Frictions on the Interface Between Tort and Contract, in Donoghue v. Stevenson and the Modern Law of Negligence (1991), pp. 159 [para. 206]; 179 [para. 278]; 181 para. 165]; 185-186n [para. 241] .

Blom, Joost, Slow Courier in the Supreme Court: A Comment on B.D.C. Ltd. v. Hofstrand Farms Ltd. (1986-87), 12 Can. Bus. L.J. 43, p. 64 [para. 177].

Carver, Thomas Gilbert, Carver's Carriage by Sea (13th Ed. 1982), pp. 241-247 [para. 48]; 241-264 [para. 58].

Caplan, G.M., and A.I. Schein, Caught in a Cross-Fire: The Erring Employee in the Borderland of Contract and Tort (1987), 8 Advocates Q. 243, p. 255 [para. 285].

Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston's Law of Contract (11th Ed. 1986), pp. 437-455 [para. 47].

Chitty on Contracts (25th Ed. 1983), vol. 1, pp. 662-691 [para. 47].

Charlesworth and Percy on Negligence (7th Ed. 1983), p. 55, paras. 9-104 [para. 245].

Clarke, P., The Reception of "The Eurymedon" Decision in Australia, Canada and New Zealand (1980), 29 Int'l. and Comp. L.Q. 132 [para. 58].

Clerk and Lindsell on Torts (16th Ed. 1989), pp. 112-113 [para. 123].

Coote, Brian, Exception Clauses (1964), p. 117-36 [para. 58].

Corbin, Arthur L., Contracts for the Benefit of Third Persons (1930), 46 L.Q. Rev. 12 [para. 58].

Corbin, Arthur L., Corbin on Contracts (1952), vol. 1, pp. 723-782 [para. 65].

Dawson, F., Himalaya Clauses, Consideration and Privity of Contract (1975), 6 N.Z.U.L. Rev. 161 [para. 58].

de Cruz, S.P., Privity in America: A Study in Judicial and Statutory Innovation (1985), 14 Anglo-American L. Rev. 265 [para. 65].

Duncan-Wallace, I.N., Anns Beyond Repair (1991), 107 L.Q. Rev. 228, pp. 230-231 [para. 173].

England, Law Commission, Twenty-fifth Annual Report 1990, Law Comm. No. 195, para. 2.14 [para. 53].

England, Law Commission, Privity of Contract: Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties, Consultation Paper No. 121, London: H.M.S.O. 1991 [para. 53].

Flannigan, Robert, Privity - The End of an Era (Error) (1987), 103 L.Q. Rev. 564, pp. 565-568 [paras. 48, 58].

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (7th Ed. 1987), pp. 265 [para. 123]; 273 [para. 288]; 340 [para. 190]; 340-341 [para. 196].

Fridman, G.H.L., The Law of Torts in Canada (1990), vol. 2, pp. 314-315 [paras. 186, 187]; 315-316 [para. 191].

Halpern, Paul, Michael Trebilcock and Stuart Turnbull, An Economic Analysis of Limited Liability in Corporation Law (1980), 30 U.T.L.J. 117 [para. 209].

Hogg, Peter W., Liability of the Crown (2nd Ed. 1989), pp. 91n, 97, 145-146 [para. 222]; 146 [para. 226].

Irvine, John, Case Comment, Surrey v. Carroll-Hatch & Associates and Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Guest (1979), 10 C.C.L.T. 266, p. 273 [para. 239].

Linden, Allen M., Canadian Tort Law (4th Ed. 1988), pp. 448-449 [para. 123].

Livermore, John, Exemption Clauses and Implied Obligations in Contracts (1986), pp. 175-207 [para. 58].

Markesinis, B.S., A Comparative Introduction to the German Law of Torts (2nd Ed. 1990), pp. 502-503, 574-575 [para. 203].

McCamus and Maddaugh, Some Problems in the Borderland of Tort, Contract and Restitution, in Law Society of Upper Canada Special Lectures: Torts in the 80's (1983), p. 290 [para. 285].

Millner, M.A., Ius Quaesitum Tertio: Comparison and Synthesis (1967), 16 Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 446 [para. 65].

New Zealand, Contracts and Commercial Law Reform Committee, Report on Privity of Contract (1981) [para. 54].

Ontario Law Reform Commission, Report on Amendment of the Law of Contract (1987), pp. 55-65 [para. 65]; 71 [para. 55].

Reif, Linda C., A Comment on ITO Ltd. v. Miida Electronics Inc. -- The Supreme Court of Canada, Privity of Contract and the Himalaya Clause (1988), 26 Alta. L. Rev. 372, p. 382 [para. 57].

Reiter, B., Contracts, Torts, Relations and Reliance, in Barry J. Reiter and John Swan, eds., Studies in Contract Law (1980) [paras. 41, 202, 208, 217, 241].

Reiter, B., and John Swan, eds., Studies in Contract Law (1980) [paras. 41, 202, 208, 217, 241].

Reynolds, F.M.B., Tort Actions in Contractual Situations (1984-85), 11 N.Z.U.L. Rev. 215, p. 222 [para. 175].

Salmond and Heuston on the Law of Torts (19th Ed. 1987), pp. 557-558 [para. 123].

Stieber, Steve, Annotation to East Kootenay Community College v. Nixon & Browning (1988), 28 C.L.R. 189, p. 190 [para. 234].

Swadling, W.J., Privity, Tort and Contract: Exempting the Careless Employee (1991), 4 Journal of Contract Law 208, pp. 218-219 [para. 134]; 229 [para. 43].

Swan, John, Privity of Contract and Third Party Beneficiaries: the Selective Use of Precedent (1991), 4 Journal of Contract Law 129, pp. 133-134 [paras. 43, 58].

Swan, John, and Barry J. Reiter, Developments in Contract Law: The 1979-80 Term (1981), 2 Sup. Ct. L. Rev. 125 [para. 58].

Tedeschi, Mark, Consideration, Privity and Exemption Clauses; Port Jackson Stevedoring Pty. Ltd. v. Salmond and Spraggon (Australia) Pty. Ltd. (1981), 55 Aust. L.J. 876 [para. 58].

Tetley, Marine Cargo Claims, The Himalaya Clause - Heresy or Genius? (2nd Ed. 1978), c. 33 [para. 58].

Tetley, William, Marine Cargo Claims (3rd Ed. 1988), p. 261 [paras. 272, 274].

Treitel, G.H., The Law of Contract (7th Ed. 1987), pp. 454-497 [para. 47]; 458 [para. 50].

Treitel, G.H., The Law of Contract (8th Ed. 1991), p. 185 [para. 129].

United Kingdom, Law Revision Committee, Sixth Interim Report, para. 48 [paras. 53, 64].

Waddams, S.M., Contracts--Carriage of Goods--Exemptions for the Benefit of Third Parties (1977), 55 Can. Bar Rev. 327, p. 333 [paras. 57, 58].

Waddams, S.M., The Law of Contracts (2nd Ed. 1984), pp. 200-216 [para. 58]; 213 [para. 291].

Waddams, S.M., Third Party Beneficiaries in the Supreme Court of Canada (1981), 59 Can. Bar Rev. 549, p. 556 [paras. 57, 58].

Walker, David M., The Law of Contracts and Related Obligations in Scotland (2nd Ed. 1985), pp. 454-460 [para. 65].

Waters, Anthony Jon, The Property in the Promise: A Study of the Third Party Beneficiary Rule (1985), 98 Harv. L. Rev. 1109 [para. 65].

Williams, Glanville, Vicarious Liability: Tort of the Master or of the Servant? (1956), 72 L.Q. Rev. 522 [paras. 186, 187].

Counsel:

Richard B. Lindsay and Michael J. Jackson, for the appellant;

Bryan G. Baynham and William S. Clark, for the respondents;

No one appeared for the intervener.

Solicitors of Record:

Lindsay Kenney, Vancouver, B.C., for the appellant;

Harper, Grey, Easton & Company, Vancouver, B.C., for the respondents;

Stevenson, Norman, Vancouver, B.C., for the intervener.

This case was heard on October 29, 1991, at Ottawa, Ontario, before La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On October 29, 1992, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Iacobucci, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka and Cory, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 116;

McLachlin, J. - see paragraphs 117 to 142;

La Forest, J., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 143 to 295.

Stevenson, J., took no part in the judgment.