Allen v. Taku Safari Inc.
[2003] B.C.J. No. 754, [2003] BCSC 516, 122 A.C.W.S (3d) 250, Victoria Registry No. 01 5499
Facts:
Andre Allen (plaintiff) entered a contract with Taku Safari Inc. (defendant) in which Taku agreed to provide a guided hunt. Allen was required to travel to Juneau where Taku would provide a connecting flight directly to the hunt site, Inklin. Allen initially paid a deposit but was unable to participate in the hunt due to his flight being cancelled. Taku advised that they would try to accommodate Allen, even two day later, but could not guarantee the connecting flight. Allen cancelled his flight from Michigan to Juneau, but was later told of another client who arrived in Juneau, and flown to Inklin that same day. This same
…show more content…
The unanticipated events did not make the performance impossible, but rather potentially delayed it to a later date.
Reasons For Judgment:
In Folia v. Relenski (1997), 14 R.P.R. (3d) 5 (B.C.S.C)., the test for frustration is states:
“…The Disruption must be permanent, not temporary or transient. The change must totally affect the nature, meaning, purpose, effect and consequence of the contract so far as concerns either or both parties.”
There is no indication that the unanticipated circumstances changed the nature of the contract or made it impossible to perform, and therefore frustrated. There was nothing explicitly stated within the contract that required a timely flight either. The fact that the plaintiff was going to be delayed by two days would not have changed the terms of the agreement. The plaintiff could have still travelled to Juneau, connect on the next available flight, and still attend a six-day hunt which he was originally contracted for.
Held:
Action is dismissed with costs on scale
Blackburn v. Golden and District Search and Rescue, RCMP, and Kicking Horse Mountain Resort. By: Austin Pigeon March 2017 Part 1: In the case between Gilles Blackburn (plaintiff) and Golden Search and Rescue, RCMP, and Kicking Horse Mountain Resort (defendants), Blackburn took the three defendants to the BC Supreme Court and sued each of them for negligence for not commencing a rescue, which lead to the death of his wife, Marie-Josée Fortin (Petrovics, 2011). Blackburn claims that between February 17 and 21, 2009, all three of the defendants were aware of SOS signals Blackburn had stomped into the snow in the mountains surrounding Golden, British Columbia.
3. The respondent, Mr Stephen Barker, had been employed by the appellant, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, for a number of years before being made redundant in March 2009 as a result of the bank restructuring the Corporation Financial Services (“CFS”) teams throughout the bank. He was informed that his employment with the bank would be terminated if he wasn’t redeployed within four weeks, but in the meantime had to turn in keys, mobile phone, and his access to his company email account, voicemail, and intranet was cut off and as such he did not receive any of the numerous emails that were sent to him about different openings for redeployment. His employment with the bank was terminated after the four week (plus an extra week for being over the
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Ticketek Pty Ltd (2011) Nature of the Case and the central legal issue Australian Competition and consumer law (ACCC) held proceedings in 2011 against Ticketek Pty Ltd at the Federal Court for contravening with Section 46 of the Trade Practices Act now known as the Competition & Consumer Act (2010) at four instances. Tickettek was alleged for deterring or preventing Lasttix from engaging in competitive conduct in the ticketing related services market when they refused to apply discounted prices that were to be published by Lasttix (a rival ticketing company) & by doing so taking advantage of their substantial market power . The parties agreed to the pecuniary penalty issued by the federal court of $2.5 million on the 22nd December 2011 . Reasons for Choice & Importance of Case
As you know I have been trying to meet with you to discuss your case with you since January of this year. Specifically, you had appointments scheduled for January 20, 2017, January 24, 2017, February 9, 2017, February 24, 2017 and, March 21, 2017. You failed to keep any of these appointments. The reason I wanted to meet with you was to explain why I was not interested in pursuing this case.
Rachael Martinelli Case Study 8-2: The Outsourced Work 1. Is BE bound by the terms of the project labor agreement, which it did not directly sign, including the duty to submit this labor dispute to final and binding arbitration for resolution? I believe that Bolton Engineering (BE) should not always be bound to the terms of the project labor agreement, that they did not directly sign. Bolton Engineering should only be bound to these conditions if they are working onsite. They did not directly sign the with the labor union so they should only have to follow the labor union when they are working on the premises of Rocket Motor Corporation.
There were a number of serious disclosure issues in this case that had to be resolved which in turn led to other, fairly large, party discoveries. CIBC’s defense to the wrongful dismissal of Mr. Saturley is just cause. Mr. Saturley was accused of causing trades for many clients without their consent, and that he had performed a task which was outside of his duties to perform. Throughout the trial Mr. Saturley had been pushing for details of the accusations towards him.
He stayed with friends, he got his feet on the ground and decided to stay. He worked as a Purchasing Administrator for one of the largest mechanical contractors in Alaska, Superior Plumbing and Heating, now otherwise known as the Superior
In Garriock v Football Federation Australia, the material facts were the Football Federation of Australia (the Federation) offered Ms Garriock a place on a tour to the United States of America in 2013 (the tour) to represent the Australian national side (the Matildas)2. Ms Garriock was given short notice that she was required to travel to the USA3. Ms Garriock is the primary carer to her daughter Kaizen, who at the time of the tour was 11 months old, and therefore was required to find alternative carer arrangements4, ultimately Ms Garriocks mother came along on the tour to provide care for her daughter, which came at a cost of $42595. Ms Garriock asked the Federation to pay for the costs necessary for the care of Kaizen, however, the Federation refused to do so6.
The case arises from an accident which occurred on September 26, 2009 after Timothy Lesko attended a Gun Bash. Michael Trail claimed serious injuries from the accident. Timothy Lesko claimed that he was not the driver and does not know who was driving while the accident occurred. Procedural History
Name: Patel Mukeshkumar Paper # JANET M. TURNER, Appellant v. HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA Word Count: _______ I. Citation: Turner v. Hershey Chocolate USA, 440 F.3d 604 [3d Cir. 2006] II. Issue and Rule: The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s disability claim. The appellant’s essential accommodation claim went to trial, but court excluded evidence regarding disability.
Qui Tam Act litigation under the federal False Claims Act The False claim Act is the main Federal law that creates the legal basis for individuals or the Government to act against any company, organization or contractor who are benefiting from government grants, intentionally present a false or fraudulent, contains false or fraudulent or a false record or statement to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved by the Government. The provisions of the false claim, are the primary litigation instrument for the government to address the issues related to fraud and deceptions caused by illegal actions of any governmental fund beneficiaries such companies, universities, or organizations. In this regard, students who enrolled in varying
This could have been avoided with the help of a souring intermediary agent. I would recommend they do what is necessary of them now with threats of lawsuits being thrown around. I would look for a souring agent to work out this complication before it escalades, seeing if both companies can’t compromise and work together, and achieve both of their goals. As for the current delay of lumber I would contact the local supplier Smoking Lumber to negotiate a deal for a split amount of the total amount need until complication with Pearl Trade Co. are worked out, and
2. A High Court claim was lodged for the return of staff travel to striking crew or damages, alleging breach of contract and breach
I had recently scheduled a dentistry appointment that have become rare and far between due to the scarcity in available appointments. This appointment of mine was scheduled four months in advanced of the allotted hour and a half time frame. As this time was allotted for my dentistry appointment, they felt empowered to administer a no-call no-show appointment fee. This fee was erroneous and unexpected for the full-charge of the appointment – with no insurance coverage due to personal liability. Upon realizing the attribution of this fee to my medical account, I had attempted to dispute the material they had presented me to pay.