Silver's Garage Ltd. v. Bridgewater (Town), (1970) 2 N.S.R.(2d) 474 (SCC)
|Judge:||Ritchie, Hall, Spence, Pigeon, and Laskin, JJ.|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Canada|
|Case Date:||January 15, 1968|
|Citations:||(1970), 2 N.S.R.(2d) 474 (SCC);17 DLR (3d) 1;2 NSR (2d) 474; SCR 577;1970 CanLII 196 (SCC);17 DLR (3d) 1|
Silver's Garage Ltd. v. Bridgewater (1970), 2 N.S.R.(2d) 474 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
Silver's Garage Limited v. Town of Bridgewater
Indexed As: Silver's Garage Ltd. v. Bridgewater (Town)
Supreme Court of Canada
Ritchie, Hall, Spence, Pigeon, and Laskin, JJ.
December 21, 1970.
Supreme Court of Canada, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal and affirmed the trial judge's dismissal of the plaintiff's action for the price of goods sold and delivered. The goods consisted of sidewalk snow removal equipment which was delivered on a "proposal" basis on January 15, 1968 to the Town of Bridgewater, Nova Scotia. Following January 15, 1968, the Town of Bridgewater intended to test the equipment along with the equipment of other suppliers in a heavy snowfall. The winter passed without a heavy snowfall and the goods were returned at the direction of the Town's council on May 15, 1968. The trial judge considered the answers of the jury in favour of the plaintiff as not supportable by the evidence and directed that the plaintiff's action be dismissed with costs.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that no agreement was reached between the plaintiff and the Town and held further that in the circumstances that a resolution of the Town's council was necessary for the Town of Bridgewater to become liable in contract for the purchase price of the goods. The Supreme Court of Canada added that the equitable doctrine of acquiescence is founded upon there having been a mistake of fact and that the doctrine did not apply to the facts in this action.
Laskin, J., dissenting, with Hall, J., concurring, would have allowed the appeal and would have directed judgment in favour of the plaintiff for $5,700. for the price of goods sold and delivered. Laskin, J. stated that the use and retention of the equipment by the Town of Bridgewater constituted an assent to the seller's "proposal" for the sale of the equipment. Laskin, J. stated that in the absence of any imperative statutory limitation that the Town of Bridgewater was liable under ordinary principles of contract and that the Town of Bridgewater in this case is in no different position than would be an individual or a private business corporation.
Municipal Law - Topic 2525
Liability of municipality in contract - Authority required - Resolution of council of municipality - Supreme Court of Canada held that a resolution of the Council of a Nova Scotia town was necessary for the town to be liable to pay the purchase price of snow removal equipment.
Practice - Topic 5182
Jury trial - Verdicts - Setting aside jury verdict - Jury findings held to be perverse - Supreme Court of Canada affirmed removal of the case from the jury by the trial judge who directed the judgment.
Sale of Goods - Topic 503
Re contract - What constitutes - Whether town agreed to purchase sidewalk snow removal equipment which was kept and used by the town from January 15, 1968 to May 15, 1968 - Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the dismissal of an action against the town for the price of goods sold and delivered.
Waterous Engineering Works v. The Corporation of the Town of Palmerston, 31 S.C.R. 449, folld.
Lawford v. The Billericay Rural District Council,  1 K.B. 772, folld.
East Middlesex District High School Board v. London Board of Education, 49 D.L.R.(2d) 586, folld.
Bernardin v. Municipality of North Dufferin (1891), 19 S.C.R. 581, folld.
Toronto Electric Light Company v. The City of Toronto, 33 O.L.R. 268, folld.
Willmott v. Barber (1880), 15 Ch. D. 96, folld.
Canadian Superior Oil Limited et al. v. The Paddon-Hughes Development Company Limited, 12 D.L.R.(2d) 247, folld.
Sohio Petroleum Company et al v. Weyburn Security Company Limited, S.C.C. unreported, folld.
Eastern Securities Company v. City of Sydney (1923), 4 D.L.R. 717, folld.
John Mackay and Company v. Toronto,  A.C. 208, folld.
Sale of Goods Act, R.S.N.S. 1967, c. 274, sect. 6(1), sect. 20, rule 4.
Towns Act, R.S.N.S. 1967, c. 309, sect. 3(2), sect. 19(2), sect. 27(2), sect. 112, sect. 171.
Rules of Court, Order 34, rule 32.
H.F. Jackson, Q.C., for the appellant;
D.R. Chipman, Q.C., for the respondent.
Spence, J. and Pigeon, J. concurred with Ritchie, J.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP