Shang v. International Polytech of Canada Inc. et al., (1998) 187 Sask.R. 143 (ProvCt)
Judge | Dirauf, P.C.J. |
Court | Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada) |
Case Date | December 07, 1998 |
Jurisdiction | Saskatchewan |
Citations | (1998), 187 Sask.R. 143 (ProvCt) |
Shang v. Intl. Polytech of Can. (1998), 187 Sask.R. 143 (ProvCt)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [1999] Sask.R. TBEd. NO.060
Wei Shang (plaintiff) v. International Polytech of Canada Inc. formerly known as Cross Pacific Holdings Corporation operating as Canadian Polytechnic College and Dr. Kiat Ban Teo (defendants)
(1998 SC # 96)
Indexed As: Shang v. International Polytech of Canada Inc. et al.
Saskatchewan Provincial Court
Dirauf, P.C.J.
December 7, 1998.
Summary:
The plaintiff was from China. He held a Bachelor's Degree and a Master's Degree in Mechanical Engineering. The plaintiff attended the defendant school, a private for profit institution, after being recruited by the Chinese Foreign Affairs Office (FAO). The courses were not at the level that he expected. After 3.5 months he left and sued for a refund of the $4,100 that he paid in tuition.
The Saskatchewan Provincial Court refunded $2,904, after deducting $1,196 for the 3.5 months of attendance. The court held that there was never any consensus ad idem between the parties as to the nature of the training the plaintiff would receive and therefore no contract. Alternatively, the plaintiff was entitled to rescission where he was misled by the FAO, which acted as the defendant's agent.
Agency - Topic 323
Creation of relations - Parties - Who constitutes an agent - The plaintiff was from China - He held a Bachelor's Degree and a Master's Degree in Mechanical Engineering - The plaintiff attended the defendant school, a private for profit institution, after being recruited by the Chinese Foreign Affairs Office (FAO) - The courses were not at the level that he expected and after 3.5 months he left and sued for a refund of the $4,100 that he paid in tuition - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court refunded $2,904, after deducting $1,196 for the 3.5 months of attendance - The court held that there was never any consensus ad idem between the parties as to the nature of the training the plaintiff would receive and therefore no contract - Alternatively, the plaintiff was entitled to rescission where he was misled by the FAO, even if the misrepresentation was merely innocent - The FAO acted as the defendant's agent.
Contracts - Topic 1503
Formation of contract - Consensus or agreement - What constitutes a consensus necessary for a binding contract - [See Agency - Topic 323 ].
Contracts - Topic 4194
Remedies for breach - Rescission - Grounds - Innocent misrepresentation - [See Agency - Topic 323 ].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Fridman, G.H.L., The Law of Contract (2nd Ed. 1986), p. 734 [para. 6].
Counsel:
Derek Vermette (third year law student), for the plaintiff;
Daniel Kuhlen, for the defendant.
This action was heard by Dirauf, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on December 7, 1998.
To continue reading
Request your trial