Answered step by step
Verified Expert Solution
Link Copied!

Question

1 Approved Answer

Performance Plus Golf Academy constructed and operated a driving range on land leased to it byHydeawayGolf Club. It continued to operate the driving range until

Performance Plus Golf Academy constructed and operated a driving range on land leased to it byHydeawayGolf Club. It continued to operate the driving range until it failed to pay its rent for three successive months (September to November). At that time,Hydeawayterminated their lease.There was no written lease.

Performance claimed compensation for the unlawful distraint of its trade fixtures and chattels. The OPP were called to keep Performance out. The disputed chattels included a driving range deck (valued at $50 000), a deck canopy ($23 000), a ball shack, driving range barrier poles ($30 000), driving range barrier nets ($30 000), some desks, some chairs, and 35 000 golf balls.

1.Could the fixtures be characterized as trade fixtures?

2.Should Performance be allowed to remove the disputed property, or canHydeawaysell it to pay for rent owing?

3.What advice do you have for how each business could have done better?

Case:

2105582 Ontario Ltd. (Performance Plus Golf Academy) v. 375445Ontario Limited (HydeawayGolf Club), 2017 ONCA 980

QuestionTwo

Muskoka Fuels bought a 2000 L fuel storage tank from the manufacturer, Hassan Steel. The life expectancy of such a tank was at least 10 years in service. But five months after putting the tankinto service, diesel fuel leaked out through a 0.5 cm hole r located at the bottom of the tank, causing damage totalling $71 589.34. The Court determined that Muskoka Fuels did nothing to cause the damage. The tank did not fail due to improper maintenance, had not been damaged during or after installation and had been properly installed and used only as intended. Instead, the hole in the tank was due to "microbially induced/influenced internal corrosion process" of unknown explanation.

1.Describe the cause of action available to Muskoka Fuels. Identify the applicable legislation. What remedy ought to be available?

Case:

Court of Appeal:Muskoka Fuels v. Hassan Steel Fabricators Limited, 2011 ONCA 355

Superior Court:Muskoka Fuels v. Hassan Steel Fabricators Limited, 2009 CanLII 78887 (ON SC)

Step by Step Solution

There are 3 Steps involved in it

Step: 1

blur-text-image

Get Instant Access with AI-Powered Solutions

See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success

Step: 2

blur-text-image

Step: 3

blur-text-image

Ace Your Homework with AI

Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance

Get Started

Recommended Textbook for

Smith and Roberson Business Law

Authors: Richard A. Mann, Barry S. Roberts

15th Edition

1285141903, 1285141903, 9781285141909, 978-0538473637

Students also viewed these Law questions