Oral Warranty (Contract): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
(Created page with "Category:Contract Law Category:Small Claims ==[http://canlii.ca/t/249wd Gallen v. Butterley, 1984 CanLII 752 (BC CA)]== [10] A statement in Anson's Law of Contracts,...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
[10] A statement in Anson's Law of Contracts, 25th ed., at p. 126 was adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in [http://canlii.ca/t/1txg3 Carman Const. Ltd. v. C.P.R., 1982 CanLII 52 (SCC), (1982) 1 S.C.R. 958, 18 B.L.R. 65, 136 D.L.R. (3d) 193, 42 N.R. 147]. It shows that an oral warranty must be strictly proved and that the existence of an intention to contract on the part of all parties must be clearly shown. This test is set out [at p. 966]: | [10] A statement in Anson's Law of Contracts, 25th ed., at p. 126 was adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in [http://canlii.ca/t/1txg3 Carman Const. Ltd. v. C.P.R., 1982 CanLII 52 (SCC), (1982) 1 S.C.R. 958, 18 B.L.R. 65, 136 D.L.R. (3d) 193, 42 N.R. 147]. It shows that an oral warranty must be strictly proved and that the existence of an intention to contract on the part of all parties must be clearly shown. This test is set out [at p. 966]: | ||
::"The question therefore is: On the totality of evidence, must the person making the statement be taken to have warranted its accuracy, i.e. promised to make it good?" | |||
::<i>"The question therefore is: On the totality of evidence, must the person making the statement be taken to have warranted its accuracy, i.e. promised to make it good?"</i> | |||
The evidence in this case falls far short of the test propounded there. | The evidence in this case falls far short of the test propounded there. | ||
Revision as of 19:25, 13 March 2020
Gallen v. Butterley, 1984 CanLII 752 (BC CA)
[10] A statement in Anson's Law of Contracts, 25th ed., at p. 126 was adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in Carman Const. Ltd. v. C.P.R., 1982 CanLII 52 (SCC), (1982) 1 S.C.R. 958, 18 B.L.R. 65, 136 D.L.R. (3d) 193, 42 N.R. 147. It shows that an oral warranty must be strictly proved and that the existence of an intention to contract on the part of all parties must be clearly shown. This test is set out [at p. 966]:
- "The question therefore is: On the totality of evidence, must the person making the statement be taken to have warranted its accuracy, i.e. promised to make it good?"
The evidence in this case falls far short of the test propounded there.
