Carlos owns a vintage furniture store in the south east of Toronto. There are a few such stores scattered in the area. Carlos's store imports vintage furnishings from various South America countries.

Carlos recently completed a very successful end of year sale and now hopes to replace old stock with new stock from overseas. He already placed an order for the stock some months ago and she needs the new season furnishings urgently. The sale went very well and 70% of her stock was sold. He is aware that if she does not get the new stock in on time from overseas, she will lose a lot of money in sales. His cash flow will be adversely affected and he will not be able to pay her rent, telephone and electricity costs. He will also struggle to meet employee salaries and the substantial payments on her overdraft with her bank. In fact, if his order from overseas is not delivered on time to her business, Carlos is likely to face bankruptcy.

He contacts the delivery company, Overseas Fright Solutions Pty Ltd, with which she has been dealing for a number of years. David is the director and owner of this company. He is now aware of Carlos's financial problems and instead of charging his company's normal delivery fee of $6,000 per delivery, which the parties have already agreed upon, David now advises Carlos that his company cannot deliver the goods for the agreed price and that if he wants them, he will need to pay $12,000 per delivery. Carlos is very unhappy with this news but reluctantly agrees because of his desperate financial position.

It takes three delivery trips for the goods to be received at Carlos's business and he pays the higher price for each delivery. The total payment is $36,000.

Carlos is distressed and seeks your advice.

REQUIRED:

With reference to relevant legal principles, use the IRAC legal problem-solving approach to advise Carlos as to his common law rights against David and/or Overseas Fright Solutions Pty Ltd. Use appropriate case law in support of your answer.