Question

CONTEMPORARY CANADIAN BUSINESS LAW: Chapter 13, Page 239, Case 3

Hamish, an experienced painting contractor, entered into an agreement with Mr. McPhail to paint the McPhail residence both inside and out for $3,200. Mrs. McPhail selected the colours, and Hamish proceeded with the work. During the time Hamish was painting the interior of the house, Mrs. McPhail constantly complained that he was either painting too slowly and interfering with her housecleaning, or painting too fast and splattering paint on the wood trim. Hamish never responded to her remarks. By the fifth day, Hamish had painted all of the house except the eavestroughs and down-spouts. As he was climbing the ladder to begin painting the eavestroughs, Mrs. McPhail appeared and warned him not to drop paint on her prize azaleas. At that point, Hamish turned and, without a word, climbed down from the ladder and left the premises. The next day, he presented his account for $3,200 to Mr. McPhail. When Mr. McPhail refused to make payment, Hamish instituted legal proceedings to collect the amount owing. Discuss the nature of the claim and indicate the defence (if any) which Mr. McPhail might raise. Render a decision.

Answer 1

Answer:

This case raises the problems of considerable performance, abandonment, and performance rendered not possible by interference from a 3rd party. The degree to that every of those affects the rights of Hamish and McPhail ought to be explored by the manner of queries such as: At what purpose would the contract be utterly performed? Would completion, aside from the eavestroughs, represent substantial performance? Did Hamish abandon the contract? Or was his performance rendered not possible by the actions of Mrs. McPhail? If performance was if truth be told rendered not possible, would Hamish be entitled to bring AN action quantum meruit? As a general rule, the contractor would be entitled to payment quantum meruit unless the work was done was of no price to the landholder, the contractor had refused to finish the work or the work was done was utterly totally different from what the party had narrowed for. (See H. Dakin & Co. Limited v. Lee, [1916] 1 K.B. 568). On this basis, the question of abandonment becomes necessary. Later cases, however, indicate that abandonment, wherever the work is well complete, would entitle the contractor to payment, less a deduction for the unfinished work. (For example, See: Hoenig v. Isaacs[1952] a pair of All E.R. 176).