3 total
Supplier’s request for direct payment not unlawful interference with contractual relations.
A Small Claims Court trial concerning an unpaid invoice and a defendant’s claim alleging breach of contract and intentional interference with economic relations.
The plaintiff manufacturer sought payment for parts produced and delivered, while the defendant alleged the plaintiff wrongfully interfered with its contractual relationship with a third-party customer and caused loss of profits and reputational damage.
The court found the parties had agreed to change payment terms to COD and that the defendant breached that agreement.
The court held that the plaintiff’s approach to the third party seeking payment was not unlawful interference and that the defendant failed to prove causation of alleged losses.
The defendant’s claim was dismissed and judgment was granted for the plaintiff on the unpaid account with interest and costs.
Advance payments recoverable where contract yielded no benefit and consideration totally failed.
The plaintiff commenced a Small Claims Court action seeking recovery of funds advanced under an agreement whereby the defendant undertook to source and manufacture commercial waffle machines in China.
The plaintiff paid over $50,000 but never received a viable prototype or manufactured units in accordance with the contractual specifications.
The court found the defendant’s explanations for the missing prototype and lack of documentation unsatisfactory and preferred the evidence of the plaintiff’s witness.
Applying the doctrine of total failure of consideration, the court held the plaintiff received no benefit under the agreement and was entitled to rescind and recover the advance payments within the Small Claims Court monetary limit.
Judgment was granted for $25,000 plus prejudgment and postjudgment interest and costs.
Limited retainer defeated negligence claim against lawyer.
The plaintiff brought a Small Claims Court action alleging negligence and breach of contract against a lawyer who had briefly represented her in proceedings before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.
She claimed the lawyer failed to advise her about a limitation period for commencing a civil action against a third party and sought damages for various alleged losses.
The court found that the lawyer’s retainer was limited to attending a pre‑review conference before the Board and advocating for the inclusion of certain medical records.
The plaintiff failed to establish that the lawyer had been retained to assess or commence a civil action or that the standard of care had been breached.
The plaintiff also failed to prove damages flowing from the alleged negligence.
The action was dismissed with costs.
