Business Tort Law: Assignment

Running head: BUSINESS TORT LAW
Business Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author

1BUSINESS TORT LAW
In 2011Goudage J.A in the case of Agribrands Purina Canada Inc v Kasamekas held
that breach of contract will not be said to be qualifying as “unlawful conduct” enough to
constitute a case of tort or unlawful conduct (Goldberg, Sebok & Zipursky, 2016). The claims of
“unlawful conduct” shall be enough ground to grant punitive damages. The case is important
because it laid down the guidelines as to how to construe contractual breaches in the future and
how to interpret contracts. The Supreme Court of Canada while deciding on the merits of this
case, placed reliance on the case of Hamilton v Open Window Bakery Ltd. where the Supreme
Court held that there are various ways to interpret a contract (Gilbert & Gilbert, 2017). In
assessing the merits of the purpose of a contract, the Court has to take into account the technique
which is most profitable to the plaintiff. In determining the damages in company cases dealing
with breach of contract, the damage has to be calculated placing maximum reliance on the
intention of the defendant that he has tried the best possible way to mitigate the damages
(Macaulay, 2018). The case deals with the breach of contract and the resultant determination of
damages. Agribrands Purnia Canada Inc had entered into a dealership agreement and the trial
judge found that the company breached the exclusivity clause of the agreement (Johnson &
Soshi, 2016). The trial judge found that the good faith clause of the plaintiff was also missing as
there was no intention on his part to carry put the contract in the way that would be least
burdensome for the defendant (Knapp, Crystal & Prince, 2016). The decision of the trial judge
went for appeal where the Court of Appeal was of the view that the Trial Judge has erred in
coming to a definite clause and the “good faith” clause used by the Trial Judge was not in line
with the Hamilton decision. The court held that the principle of “good faith” was not a pre-
requisite to carry out the “least burdensome” principle (hannigan, 2015). The Court also held that
to apply “unlawful conduct” the court has to check the action as unlawful and causing