The appellants challenged a trial judgment awarding damages for breach of a woodcutting contract after they removed the respondent from their property.
The central issue was whether the contract required selective cutting of cedar trees or permitted clear cutting, and whether extrinsic evidence could be used to support the appellants' interpretation.
The court held that the written contract was clear, accepted evidence of trade custom as available to interpret the contract, and upheld the conclusion that selective cutting applied only to hardwood and softwood trees.
The refusal to consider parol evidence on the appellants' defences was not erroneous, the damages award was reasonable, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
