COMM 393 Chapter : Case Brief - Peacock V. Esquimalt & Nanaimo Railway Co. ā€“ PRIVITY OF CONTRACT.docx

989 views2 pages
23 Sep 2014
School
Department
Course

Document Summary

Peacock v. esquimalt & nanaimo railway co. privity of contract. Plaintiff put up a deposit on a land purchase on behalf of a syndicate of buyers (wessex. Management, west steel corp, darrell brown, and alan parkin) from the defendants (esquimalt. As a condition of the purchase agreement, if the contract is breached the purchasers are entitled to a refund of deposit (net the necessary costs of clean- up. ) A fire occurred which rendered the land non-manageable for the purchasers (a subsequent frustrating event,) thus discharging the contract. The plaintiff pursues a claim to the value of the deposit, claiming that an oral agreement between itself and the defendants obligates the firm to return the deposit in the event the purchase is not completed. The defendants claim the plaintiff has no privity to the contract (as a third party) and has no title to repayment of the deposit.

Get access

Grade+20% off
$8 USD/m$10 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
40 Verified Answers
Class+
$8 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Class+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
30 Verified Answers

Related Documents