Why didn't the franchisees sue their distributors under the Ontario Sale of Goods Act? One would have thought a lot of their loss was Hadley v Baxendale compliant.

Andrew

Compare Mazetti v Armour & Co 135 P 633 (1913) a landmark in product liability: I refer to it in PRODUCT LIABILITY (1994) at 21 and 70 and in other writings.

Jane


On 2018-05-15 16:29, Stephen Pitel wrote:

In the context of the debate over the reasoning in _Rankin's Garage_,
readers might find interesting the Court of Appeal for Ontario's
decision in _1688782 Ontario Inc. v Maple Leaf Foods Inc._, 2018 ONCA
407 (available at
http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2018/2018ONCA0407.htm [1]).

 The case deals with an alleged duty of care owed by a manufacturer of
ready-to-eat meats to the franchisees of a sandwich restaurant (Mr
Sub) that used the manufacturer's meats.  The manufacturer's meats
became contaminated, triggering a recall.  The franchisees lost sales
and goodwill as a result.

 The court found no duty owed to the franchisees.   It held that the
losses sustained were not reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer
(para 84).

 While the manufacturer was under a duty to supply meat fit for human
consumption, and was taken to have represented that to the
franchisees, the court held "the type of injury claimed – economic
losses arising from reputational harm – did not fall within the
scope of any duty owed to the franchisees" (para 68).

 It may be interesting that the duty analysis does not refer to any of
the cases about the supply of hazardous products or structures (the
_Winnipeg Condominium _line of authorities).

 Stephen

--

 Professor Stephen G.A. Pitel
 Faculty of Law, Western University
 (519) 661-2111 ext 88433
 President, University of Western Ontario Faculty Association


Links:
------
[1] http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2018/2018ONCA0407.htm