Canadian Law: A Look at 2 Cases Case one: Ann’s Flower Shop and the case of the case of the crystal vases There appears to be an “excuse” for non-performance of the contract in the sense that the supplier of the vases has gone out of business and the shop has been unable to locate any further suppliers after much effort. However, the absence of the vases appears to mean that the shop has failed to provide substantial performance vis-à-vis the terms of the contract insofar as the crystal vases were/are the foundation of the contract. In light of the fact that Sally might sue for breach of contract, it appears clear that Ann must create a printed record of all the things she has done in an effort to satisfy the terms of the contract; this...The end:
.....se Gary was not under duress or coercion when he signed; Peter certainly did not pressure him or “blackmail” him into signing terms that Gary found “tough.” Ultimately, if Gary found the terms of the contract too difficult, he should have walked away. Peter did not breach the terms of the contract because he paid Gary everything he said he would; by contrast, Gary lost money because he failed to fulfil in full his terms of the contract. As a result, Gary is not entitled to expectation damages. Furthermore, the liquidated damages in place in the body of the contract (the $1000 a day for late work) appear to be justifiable and Gary cannot recover that money as he agreed to the contract and should have foreseen that labour trouble might arise.