Resolute Shipping Ltd. v. Jasmin Construction Inc., [1978] 1 SCR 907

• Judge: Judson, Ritchie, Pigeon, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 30, 1977
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: [1978] 1 SCR 907;(1977), 17 N.R. 475 (SCC);1977 CanLII 180 (SCC)

Resolute Shipping v. Jasmin Constr. (1977), 17 N.R. 475 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Resolute Shipping Ltd. v. Jasmin Construction Inc.

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

Supreme Court of Canada

Judson, Ritchie, Pigeon, Beetz and de Grandpré, JJ.

September 30, 1977.

Summary:

This case arose out of a claim for damages by a shipping firm arising out of a contract to transport by ship (for the defendant owner) 14 mobile medical units from Quebec City to the Northwest Territories. During contract negotiations the owner stated to the shipping company that the approximate weight of the fourteen units was 150 tons. In fact, the units weighed 215 tons. As a result of the understatement of the weight of the cargo, the shipping company used an underpowered crane to lift the goods. Some of the goods were damaged during the lifting operations. The shipping company delivered the units in accordance with the contract but claimed damages for breach of contract for additional expenses which the shipping company incurred due to the larger unanticipated weight of the cargo. The owner of the units counterclaimed for damages for damage to one of the units which was dropped by a crane when it was being loaded onto a ship at Quebec City. The trial court allowed the action by the shipping company and awarded the shipping company damages of $25,833. The trial court also allowed the owner's counterclaim for damages in part. The trial court held that the crane operator was 25% at fault for failing to "test lift" the cargo and that the owner of the goods was 75% at fault for failing to provide accurate weight information.

On appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal the appeal was allowed and the judgment in favour of the shipping company was set aside. The Federal Court of Appeal held that the failure of the owner to provide accurate weight information did not constitute a breach of contract. The judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal is reported at 6 N.R. 578.

In addition, the Federal Court of Appeal awarded the owner 100% of the owner's claim for damages for the unit which was dropped when being loaded onto the ship. The Federal Court of Appeal held that the shipping firm was 100% at fault because it failed to "test lift" the cargo before loading it onto the ship.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the appeal was allowed, the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal was set aside and the judgment of the trial court was restored. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the understatement of the weight of the cargo by the owner constituted a breach of contract.

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 shipping company agreed to transport by ship (for the defendant owner) 14 mobile medical units from Quebec City to the Northwest Territories - The owner of the cargo understated the weight of the medical units by 30% resulting in delay and additional expense for the shipping company - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the shipping company's action for damages for breach of contract - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the owner's understatement of the weight of the cargo constituted a breach of contract.

Shipping and Navigation - Topic 2395

Carriage of goods - Loading of goods - Stowage operations - Negligence - A shipping company damaged goods during stowage operations - The owner of the goods understated the weight of the goods by 30% which resulted in the shipping company using an underpowered crane to lift the goods - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the shipping company was 25% at fault for failing to "test lift" the goods - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the owner of the cargo was 75% at fault for understating the weight of the cargo.

Contracts - Topic 3523

Breach of contract - What constitutes a breach of contract - The plaintiff shipping company agreed to transport by ship (for the defendant owner) 14 mobile medical units from Quebec City to the Northwest Territories - The owner understated the weight of the units by 30% resulting in delay and additional expense for the shipping company - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the understatement of the weight of the cargo by the owner constituted a breach of contract.

Statutes Noticed:

Quebec Civil Code, art. 992 [para. 7]; art. 1065 [para. 7].

Counsel:

W. David Angus and Marc deMan, for the appellant;

Denis Rousseau, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by JUDSON, RITCHIE, PIGEON, BEETZ and de GRANDPRE, JJ. at Ottawa, Ontario on March 11, 1977.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered by RITCHIE, J. on September 30, 1977.