Jeffrey Kriwetz

The plaintiff advanced significant sums to the defendant and his company over several years, documented by promissory notes.

The trial judge found the advances were demand loans, not investments, and held the defendant and his company liable for fraudulent activities, while dismissing the defendant's slander action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in his interpretation of the limitation period, finding that the earliest loans from 2000 and 2001 were statute-barred under the former six-year limitation period and could not be revived by later partial payments.

The appeal was allowed in part to reduce the damage award accordingly, but dismissed on all other grounds, including the cross-appeal.

The plaintiff manufacturer sued the defendant metal processing company for the unpaid balance and extras on a contract for a custom Tension Leveling & Cut-To-Length Line.

The defendant counterclaimed for lost profits, alleging the machine failed to produce flat, memory-free sheets and could not process heavy gauge coils.

The court found that the defendant breached the contract by prematurely terminating the final acceptance testing, which was a condition precedent, thereby denying the plaintiff the opportunity to remedy any defects.

The plaintiff was awarded the contract balance and partial payment for extras, and the counterclaim was dismissed.