Housewife Construction Ltd. v. Golden Sichuan
1. Why did Segal Disposal deliver the bins to Golden Sichuan in September 2011, despite being told that Golden no longer wanted their services and they had renewed a disposal contract with their previous service provider?
2. Segal attempted to claim liquidated damages set out in the service contract. However, the judge only awarded it $760.62 (plus the filing and service fee). Why did the judge reach this conclusion?
Housewife Construction Ltd. v. Golden Sichuan
1.Segal Disposal is a cardboard and waste collection company. Golden Sichuan had acquired its services but realized that their current hauler contract was to expire on September 2011 whereby Segal would commence their service provision with Golden Sichuan. The two companies had a three-year service agreement. However, in June 2011, Golden notified Segal that they had opted to renew their contract with their current hauler. On September 2011, Segal delivered bins to Golden despite the notification from the company not requiring their services. However, the two companies had a service agreement which was a legally binding contract. thus, Segal Disposal was within its rights to deliver the disposal bins to Golden despite being informed that they no longer wanted their services. Golden had breached the contract agreement Segal expected them to uphold.
2. Following the contract breach, Segal Disposal attempted to claiming for damages and sued the Golden for 36 months despite providing services for less than that. The presiding judge awarded the company $760.62 only. Herein are the reasons the judge came to the conclusions. Segal was claiming for liquidated damages however the application of public policy set out, the judge applied the clause stating that it was only mean for the company to claim for liquidated damages and there was no clear indication of the actual cost following the breach of the contract by golden Sichuan. At the trial the judge ascertained that the was a contract breach by golden Sichuan, however the written clause claimed that the payment of the remaining 34 months was a penalty thus not eligible to be enforced. The judge deemed it was fit for Segal disposal company to claim only up to three months’ worth of damages which amounted to $760.62.
Work Cited
Housewife Construction Ltd. v. Golden Sichuan, 2012 BCPC 43 (CanLII),
