It is a shame that approach was not adopted in Arnold v Britton where the Cardiff County Court clearly got the right answer – only to be reversed
by three (count ‘em) unedifying layers of appeal.
Gerard McMeel
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
 |
|
||||||
|
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and legally privileged. This e-mail is intended to be read only by the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, dissemination or copying of this e-mail is prohibited and that privilege has not been waived. Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus, or other defect, which might affect any computer or system into which they are received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that they are virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Guildhall Chambers, or any barrister that conducts business as member of Guildhall, for any loss or damage from receipt or use thereof. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying by email or by telephone (+44 (0)117 930 9000) and then delete the e-mail. |
|||||||
From: Adam Kramer [mailto:akramer@3vb.com]
Sent: 18 January 2017 12:47
To: 'Harrington Matthew P.' <matthew.p.harrington@umontreal.ca>; 'obligations@uwo.ca' <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: RE: Canada Supreme Court Greatest Hits in Contract
I like
Sattva Capital Corporation v Creston Moly Corporation et al [2014] 2 SCR 633.
The present English approach of treating interpretation as a pure question of law and so permitting appeals from interpretation decisions as a matter of course is wrong and
unjust.
Adam Kramer
Direct dial:+44 (0)20 7269 1101Switchboard:+44 (0)20 7831 8441
3 Verulam Buildings, Gray’s Inn, London, WC1R 5NT
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The contents of this email are CONFIDENTIAL and may be PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient, please telephone (020) 7831 8441 and delete this email.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jason W Neyers [mailto:jneyers@uwo.ca]
Sent: 15 January 2017 01:16
To: Harrington Matthew P.; obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: RE: Canada Supreme Court Greatest Hits in Contract
Dear Matthew:
How about the tendering cases developing the Contract A/Contract B analysis.
Sincerely,
Jason Neyers
Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
Western University
Law Building Rm 26
t. 519.661.2111 (x88435)
-----Original Message-----
From: Harrington Matthew P. [mailto:matthew.p.harrington@umontreal.ca]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 11:37 AM
Subject: Canada Supreme Court Greatest Hits in Contract
Dear Colleagues:
I’m doing a short piece on the Canada Supreme Court and the law of contract with a bit of an historical focus. I was wondering if you might be willing to share with me what
you consider the court’s most significant contracts cases --- over the past 150 years ---- even if the case has been overruled.
Thanks
Matt
-------------------------------
Matthew P Harrington
Professeur
Faculté de droit
Université de Montréal
514.343.6105
commonlaw.umontreal.ca
------------------------------
This message has been scanned by 3VB's Websense Email Security.
www.websense.com