Robert Tolhurst

A farmer and investor (plaintiff) and a younger farmer with access to dairy quota (defendant) entered into an oral agreement to purchase a farm and operate a dairy business together.

The plaintiff provided financing while the defendant contributed dairy quota.

The business failed after less than two years of operation.

The plaintiff sought a beneficial interest in the proceeds from the sale of the dairy quota (held in trust), reimbursement for cattle, custom work, and forage contributions, and damages for breach of contract and misrepresentation.

The court found that while an oral agreement existed, the defendant did not breach its terms, made no actionable misrepresentations, and failed to prove damages.

However, the court found that the plaintiff had a purchase money resulting trust interest in the quota proceeds in the amount of $560,000 (representing his contribution to the quota purchase).

The plaintiff's other claims were dismissed, and the counterclaim was dismissed.

Homeowners commenced an action for damages alleging breach of a construction contract relating to the lifting of a house and installation of a new basement foundation.

The contractor counterclaimed for unpaid amounts relating to the contract and additional work performed as “extras”.

The court held the homeowners acted as builder‑owners responsible for overall project compliance with the Building Code and rejected claims that the contractor guaranteed the structural viability of the project.

While minor breaches of workmanship were found, including damage caused during lowering of the house and incomplete debris removal, the claimed damages were largely excessive.

After accounting for contractual credits and valid charges for additional work, the contractor succeeded on the counterclaim with judgment granted in a set‑off amount.