Sunlite International Inc. v. Trans-Canada Resources Ltd., (1978) 13 A.R. 397 (TD)

• Judge: Moore, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 26, 1978
• Citations: (1978), 13 A.R. 397 (TD)

Sunlite Intl. Inc. v. Trans-Can. Resources (1978), 13 A.R. 397 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Sunlite International Inc. v. Trans-Canada Resources Ltd.

Indexed As: Sunlite International Inc. v. Trans-Canada Resources Ltd.

Alberta Supreme Court

Trial Division

Judicial District of Calgary

Moore, J.

June 26, 1978.

Summary:

This case arose out of an agreement for the sale of mining claims. The buyer refused to complete the sale because the seller failed to deliver title documents to an escrow agent. The seller commenced an action for the enforcement of the agreement for sale. The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, dismissed the seller's action and allowed the buyer's counterclaim for damages.

Mines and Minerals - Topic 1748

Mining claims - Transfer of mining claims - Agreement for sale - The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, interpreted the terms of an agreement for sale of a mining claim and held that the seller was not entitled to enforce the agreement because the seller failed to deliver title documents to an escrow agent - The Trial Division stated that the delivery of the title documents was a condition precedent to payment of the purchase price - See paragraph 45.

Contracts - Topic 7401

Interpretation - General principles - Intention of parties - The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, stated that greater regard should be given to the clear intention of the parties than to any particular words the parties may have used in the expression of their intent - See paragraph 48.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 604

Jurisdiction - General principles - Actions in personam - The plaintiff, a Nevada corporation, sued a British Columbia corporation for breach of contract arising out of subject matter located in the State of Nevada - Both the plaintiff and the defendant were registered to do business in Alberta - The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that it had jurisdiction to hear the case - See paragraphs 20 to 26 - The Trial Division stated that in an action in personam the rules of legal service of a writ define the limits of a court's jurisdiction - See paragraph 24.

Conflict of Laws - Topic 7238

Contracts - Choice of law - Sale of land, sale of mining claims - A contract for the sale of mining claims (located in Nevada) was made in British Columbia and performance of the contract was to take place in British Columbia - The Alberta Supreme Court, Trial Division, held that the law of British Columbia should apply in interpreting the contract - See paragraphs 27 to 34.

Cases Noticed:

Duke v. Andler, [1932] 4 D.L.R. 529, folld. [para. 23].

Ward v. Coffin, 4 N.B.R.(2d) 481; 27 D.L.R.(3d) 58, folld. [paras. 25, 33].

Colmenares v. Imperial Life Assurance Co. of Canada (1967), 62 D.L.R.(2d) 138, folld. [para. 29].

Soderberg v. Crockett (1883), 30 P. 826, refd to. [para. 42].

Stewart v. Friedrichsen and Christofferson (1960), 24 D.L.R.(2d) 477, refd to. [para. 43].

Jones v. Free (1967), 83 Nevada 314, 22 P. 2d 551, refd to. [para. 52].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Dicey's Conflict of Laws (7th Ed.), p. 176 [para. 24].

Chitty on Contracts (23rd Ed.), p. 608 [para. 48].

Counsel:

T.H. Ferguson, for the plaintiff;

G.R. Forsyth, Q.C. and F.R. Foran, for the defendant.

This case was heard by MOORE, J., of the Trial Division of the Alberta Supreme Court.

The judgment of MOORE, J., was delivered at Calgary, Alberta on June 26, 1978.