Patrick Hill

The appellant sought solicitor-and-client costs pursuant to Rule 49.10 based on an offer to settle.

The respondent argued the offer was ambiguous regarding costs and incapable of acceptance, and that the appellant failed to obtain the relief sought.

The Court of Appeal applied recent jurisprudence holding that uncertainty in an offer is only relevant to whether the party met its burden of proof under Rule 49.10.

The court found the appellant met its burden and awarded party-and-party costs to the date of the offer and solicitor-and-client costs thereafter.

The appellant corporation entered into a personal services contract with the respondent company.

The contract, drafted by the appellant's principal, contained a termination clause providing for compensation if the respondent unilaterally terminated the agreement.

The respondent's principal signed the contract without reading the termination clause.

The respondent later unilaterally terminated the agreement.

The trial judge held that the appellant's principal owed a duty to bring the termination clause to the respondent's attention and rectified the contract by striking the clause.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding no such duty existed as the respondent's principal was an experienced businessman who was advised to read the contract.

The Court also held that rectification was inapplicable as there was no mutual intention regarding unilateral termination.