Rosseway v. Canadian Kenworth Ltd. and Cummins Diesel of Canada Ltd., (1978) 11 A.R. 91 (DC)

• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: March 13, 1978
• Citations: (1978), 11 A.R. 91 (DC)

Rosseway v. Cdn. Kenworth Ltd. (1978), 11 A.R. 91 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Rosseway v. Canadian Kenworth Ltd. and Cummins Diesel of Canada Ltd.

Indexed As: Rosseway v. Canadian Kenworth Ltd. and Cummins Diesel of Canada Ltd.

Alberta District Court

Judicial District of Edmonton

Feehan, D.C.J.

March 13, 1978.

Summary:

This case arose out of the plaintiff trucker's action against the defendant for rescission of a contract for the sale of a tractor. The plaintiff purchased the new tractor for the express purpose of long distance hauling. However, the tractor suffered two major breakdowns and many other minor but time consuming breakdowns in 10 long distance trips, none of which was trouble free. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant seller for rescission and damages.

The Alberta District Court allowed the plaintiff's action and granted rescission of the contract. The District Court held that the constant trouble with the tractor constituted a fundamental breach of contract.

See also Seich v. Festival Ford Sales Ltd., 10 A.R. 431 and Alberta Caterers Ltd. v. R. Vollan (Alta.) Ltd. et al., 10 A.R. 501.

Contracts - Topic 3730

Breach - Fundamental breach - What constitutes - The plaintiff trucker purchased a new tractor, which suffered two major breakdowns and many other minor but time consuming breakdowns in ten long distance trips, none of which was trouble free - The Alberta District Court held that the constant trouble with the tractor constituted a fundamental breach of contract entitling the plaintiff to rescission - See paragraphs 21 to 45.

Contracts - Topic 3735

Breach - Fundamental breach - Effect of exclusionary clause - The Alberta District Court held that an exclusionary clause in a contract is inapplicable where the contract is fundamentally breached - See paragraphs 38 to 40.

Cases Noticed:

Canadian-Dominion Leasing Corp. Ltd. v. Suburban Superdrug Ltd. (1966), 55 W.W.R.(N.S.) 396, consd. [para. 30].

Lightburn v. Belmont Sales Ltd. et al. (1969), 6 D.L.R.(3d) 692; 69 W.W.R.(N.S.) 734, folld. [paras. 31, 41].

Knowles v. Anchorage Holdings Co. Ltd. (1964), 46 W.W.R.(N.S.) 173, folld. [para. 32].

Gibbons v. Trapp Motors Ltd., 9 D.L.R.(3d) 742, folld. [para. 33].

Cain et al. v. Bird Chevrolet-Oldsmobile Ltd. et al., 12 O.R.(2d) 532, folld. [para. 34].

Western Tractor Ltd. v. Dyck (1969), 70 W.W.R.(N.S.) 215, appld. [para. 37].

Karsales (Harrow) Ltd. v. Wallis, [1956] 1 W.L.R. 936; 100 Sol.J. 548; [1956] 2 All E.R. 866, appld. [para. 38].

Barber v. Inland Truck Sales Ltd. (1970), 11 D.L.R.(3d) 469, folld. [para. 43].

Ford Motor Company of Canada Ltd. v. Haley (1967), 60 W.W.R.(N.S.) 497, appld. [para. 50].

Statutes Noticed:

Sale of Goods Act, R.S.A. 1970, c. 327, sect. 17 [para. 22].

Counsel:

D.W. Hagg, for the plaintiff;

G.A. Verville, for the defendant.

This case was heard at Edmonton, Alberta, before FEEHAN, D.C.J., of the Alberta District Court, Judicial District of Edmonton.

On March 13, 1978, FEEHAN, D.C.J., delivered the following judgment: