I am doing a case in a business law class. The case is Budget Rent a Car of Edmonton Ltd. v University of Toronto.

There are questions that need answering.

1.Who won the case?

2.What defences do you think the University of Toronto originally argued to make the

contract invalid?

3.Do you agree with the decision? Why or why not?

This is the case transcript

The trial judge in the present case dismissed the suit by the car rental company against the renter for the serious damage to the rented vehicle, which she found to have been caused by theft. It is admitted that the rented car had been left running for some hours with the key in the ignition and some doors unlocked outside a popular bar in Edmonton between 1:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m.

[2]The contract (in its terms on the back) says that the renter will be responsible for theft if the renter was negligent. The renter also expressly covenants to keep the doors and windows and ignition all closed and locked when it is not in the car. The University of Toronto's agent signed the contract on the front, and he also initialled in two places the boxes calling for full collision coverage, or full collision insurance, and for personal insurance. The one calling for full collision insurance said it was subject to the exceptions herein.

[3]The trial judge relied upon the majority judgment inTilden Bent-a-Car Co. v. Clendenning(1978)1978 CanLII 1446 (ON CA),83 D.L.R. (3d) 400 (Ont. C.A.). We do have some doubts as to whether or not that majority judgment is correct, but in the present case it iscompletely unnecessary for us to decide that question. If the majority judgments inTilden Rent-a-Car Co. v. Clendenningare correct, in our view they were not triggered here.

[4]In the first place the renter, the Governing Council of the University of Toronto, was not inexperienced. In addition, the agent which it chose to effect the rental and sign the contract was, as the evidence shows, very experienced in signing such contracts. We do not agree that the relevant portions of the contract were in their physical arrangement in any way difficult to read, surprising or tricky. We have examined the original exhibit and are not just relying upon a photostat.

[5]Most important, the clauses relied upon saying that the renter will be liable for negligence and will not leave the car in any sense unlocked are, in our view, in no way surprising, unusual, unexpected, onerous, or unfair. We say that both in the abstract, and in light of the personal circumstances outlined above, and in light of the arrangement of the contract, and in light of the collision and personal insurance coverage purchased, and in light of the postulated need to tell any authorized drivers of anything unusual or onerous in the contract.

[6]Therefore, in our view, the defence relied upon by the trial judge cannot apply here. We see no other relevant or applicable defence, allow the appeal and enter judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants in the amounts prayed for.

[7](Discussion with counsel, which mentioned that quantum had been agreed upon, and revealed an offer to settle before trial.)

COT J.A.:

[8]The plaintiff will have costs against the defendants jointly and severally in Queen's Bench and in the Court of Appeal. In Queen's Bench, after the date of service of the plaintiff's offer of judgment, those costs will be double what they otherwise would be. Before then, and in the Court of Appeal, they will be on the normal basis. By the normal basis, we mean the applicable column of Schedule C.