Resolute Shipping Ltd. v. Jasmin Construction Inc., (1974) 6 N.R. 578 (FCA)

• Judge: Jackett, C.J., Pratte, J.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: September 26, 1974
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1974), 6 N.R. 578 (FCA)

Resolute Shipping Ltd. v. Jasmin Constr. (1974), 6 N.R. 578 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Resolute Shipping Ltd. v. Jasmin Construction Inc.

Indexed As: Resolute Shipping Ltd. v. Jasmin Construction Inc.

Federal Court of Appeal

Jackett, C.J., Pratte, J.

and Hyde, D.J.

December 13, 1974.

Summary:

This case arose out of a claim for damages by a shipping firm arising out of a contract to transport for the defendant 14 mobile medical units from Quebec City to the Northwest Territories. The defendant during negotiations for the contract stated to the shipping company that the approximate weight of the 14 units was 150 tons. In fact, the units weighed 215 tons. The shipping firm delivered the units in accordance with the contract but claimed damages for breach of contract for the additional expense which the shipping firm incurred due to the larger unanticipated weight of the units. The owner of the units counter-claimed for damages for damage to one of the units which was dropped by a crane while it was being loaded onto a ship at Quebec City. The trial court allowed the action by the shipping firm and awarded the shipping firm damages of $25,833.00. The trial court also allowed the counter-claim in part - fault was divided 25% against the crane operator and 75% against the owner of the goods for providing inaccurate weight information.

On appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal the appeal was allowed with respect to the claim by the shipping company and the judgment in favour of the shipping company was set aside. The Federal Court of Appeal held that the provision of the inaccurate weight information by the owner of the goods did not constitute a breach of contract. The Federal Court of Appeal stated that the fact that the parties were mistaken as to the weight of the mobile units did not constitute a breach of contract by the owner of the goods - see paragraph 16.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed an appeal with respect to the owner's claim for damages for the unit which was dropped while being loaded onto the ship. The Federal Court of Appeal held that the shipping firm was 100% at fault because it was the duty of the shipping firm in the circumstances to ascertain the weight of the units before loading them onto the ship or to use a more powerful crane - see paragraph 25.

A notice of appeal with respect to this case was filed in the Supreme Court of Canada on or about January 15, 1975 - see the January 17, 1975 issue of the Bulletin of Proceedings taken in the Supreme Court of Canada.

Contracts - Topic 3523

Performance or breach - Breach - What constitutes a breach - The plaintiff carrier agreed to transport by ship for the defendant 14 mobile medical units from Quebec City to the Northwest Territories - The defendant represented that the units weighed approximately 150 tons - The units in fact weighed 215 tons - The plaintiff claimed damages for breach of contract for the additional expense which the plaintiff incurred due to the larger unanticipated weight - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff's claim for breach of contract - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the fact the parties were mistaken as to the weight of the cargo did not constitute a breach of contract by the defendant - See paragraph 16.

Shipping and Navigation - Topic 2364

Carriage of goods - Loading of a ship - Provision of the goods - Negligence - Duty of the parties respecting weight information - The plaintiff carrier agreed to transport by ship for the defendant 14 mobile medical units from Quebec City to the Northwest Territories - The carrier dropped and damaged one of the units while it was being loaded onto a ship by a crane - The carrier refused to pay for the damage because the approximate weight of the units as provided by the owner was understated and that such understatement was the cause of the inability of a crane to handle the unit - The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the owner's action for damages - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that it was the duty of the carrier in the circumstances to ascertain the weight of the units before loading the units or use a more powerful crane - See paragraph 25.

Statutes Noticed:

Quebec Civil Code, art. 992 [para. 10].

Federal Court Rules, rule 1104 [fn. 2].

Counsel:

Denis Rousseau, for appellant (respondent in cross-appeal);

W. David Angus, for respondent (appellant in cross-appeal).

This appeal was heard by the Federal Court of Appeal at Montreal, Quebec on September 26, 1974. Judgment was delivered by the Federal Court of Appeal on December 13, 1974.

The judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal was delivered by JACKETT, C.J. and PRATTE, J. HYDE, D.J. concurred with the judgment, of JACKETT, C.J. and PRATTE, J.