Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:24

From: David Cheifetz

Subject: Johnston v NEI

But in Mustapha v. Culligan, the Ontario Court of Appeal discussed Fidler and put the person of 'reasonable fortitude and robustness' requirement - customary phlegm is so much more colourful - into any contract claim, too: see paras 56-58. What's clear is that the Ontario Court of Appeal wasn't prepared to imply that damages for psychiatric injury resulting from a psyche a tad short on phlegm, customary or otherwise, would normally be within the reasonable contemplation of the parties to an ordinary commercial contract.

DC

________________________________
From: Jason Neyers
Sent: October 20, 2007 9:08 AM
Cc: Obligations Discussion Group
Subject: Re: RE: ODG: Re: Johnston v NEI

I would only add that the breach of contract claim for distress is much easier to bring in Canada in light of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Fidler which has liberalized recovery for these types of losses. Given that the House of Lords has yet to discuss Fidler, there is an argument that it might represent English law as well.

In response to Ken, doesn't the law allow you to bring every action of which you can prove the required elements?

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>