When a party enters into a structure under a contract where the contract does not stipulate that it will be reasonably fit for the purpose for which it is intended, is the contract enforceable?
Yukon, Canada
The following excerpt is from Mineault v. Takhini Hot Springs Ltd., 2002 YKSC 48 (CanLII):
Cairns J. also cited the case of Francis v. Cockrill, supra, as follows: Where A enters B’s structure under a contract entitling him to do so, it is an implied term in the contract that the structure shall be reasonably fit for the purpose for which it is intended; but this does not extend to any unknown defect incapable of being discovered by reasonable means.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
What is the test for the interpretation of a clause in a commercial contract where the contract states that the contract does not contain any specific terms? (Yukon, Canada)
Can a third party in possession of a police report be considered to be a party to a witness report? (Yukon, Canada)
How have the courts interpreted the principle of "reasonable diligence" in assessing the facts of a claim? (Yukon, Canada)
What are the reasons for moving a mother's home? (Yukon, Canada)
What is the test for a motion to vary access to a child by a third party? (Yukon, Canada)
Can a consent order be interpreted in the same way as a contract? (Yukon, Canada)
What is the case law on external lay-off provisions in employment contracts? (Yukon, Canada)
How has a law firm been found to be a party to a personal injury application? (Yukon, Canada)
How have the reasons of a tribunal decision been interpreted by chambers judges? (Yukon, Canada)
What is the current state of the law in England and Wales with respect to the doctrine of "no" reasoning? (Yukon, Canada)
