525:
488:
467:
446:
413:
42:
338:
said that clause 7 did not exclude negligence liability in clear enough terms and clause 17 was ambiguous and would be construed against the Crown. The Crown could realistically be said to have been strictly liable for damage to the goods (e.g. by breach of obligation to keep the shed in repair) and
258:
and burned down the shed. According to proper practice he was negligent and should have used a hand drill because sparks flew and lit some cotton bales. $ 533,584 of goods were destroyed, of which $ 40,714 belonging to Canada
Steamship Lines. The Crown argued that CSL could not sue because clause 7
243:
Clause 17 said "the lessee shall at all times indemnify ... the lessor from and against all claims ... by whomsoever made ... in any manner based upon, occasioned by or attributable to the execution of these presents, or any action taken or things done ... by virtue hereof, or the exercise in any
932:
308:
The intention of the parties to be gathered from the whole of the document was that, as between the lessor and the lessee, the lessor should be exempt under both clauses 7 and 17 from liability founded on negligence
457:
715:
846:
346:
one should ask whether the words are wide enough to exclude negligence and if there is doubt, that is resolved against the one relying on the clause. If that is satisfied, then
223:(CSL) entered into a Crown lease for a twelve-year term, in which it became a tenant of certain dock property on which was situated a freight shed, on St Gabriel Basin on the
499:
736:
386:
702:
131:
622:
211:, it has been influential in similar cases under English law, but is now recognised as providing "guidelines" rather than an "automatic solution".
550:
200:
57:
779:
339:
therefore negligence should not be covered. In that regard, he set out the following principles for courts to use in considering such clauses:
815:
591:
789:
657:
578:
564:
927:
680:
942:
922:
821:
276:, Angers J held that the Crown's employees had been negligent and that clause 7 could not be invoked as their negligence amounted to
349:
one should ask whether the clause could cover some alternative liability other than for negligence, and if it can, it covers that.
379:
947:
805:
757:
669:
638:
615:
343:
if a clause expressly excludes liability for negligence (or an appropriate synonym ) then effect is given to that. If not,
278:
372:
207:, as the cause for appeal arose before the abolition of such appeals in 1949. Although arising in civil law under the
119:
424:
937:
810:
726:
536:
220:
208:
608:
273:
135:
103:
302:, the Court declared that the finding of negligence by the trial judge could not be disturbed. The Court ruled:
768:
747:
237:
Clause 7 said "the lessee (ie, CSL) shall not have any claim… for… damage… to… goods… being… in the said shed."
335:
299:
204:
150:
127:
99:
95:
647:
524:
487:
466:
445:
412:
290:). For the same reason, he dismissed the third party proceedings instituted by the Crown under clause 17.
310:
186:
800:
478:
190:
46:
17:
691:
519:
482:
440:
407:
461:
240:
Clause 8 said the lessor (ie, the Crown) would maintain the said shed at its own cost and expense.
195:
164:
354:
283:
228:
515:
878:
403:
916:
251:
224:
582:
568:
540:
41:
554:
505:
178:
123:
75:
287:
364:
847:
Applying Canada
Steamship principles on interpretation of exclusion clauses
600:
933:
Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council cases on appeal from Canada
357:, and so the exclusion clause did not work to cover negligence.
255:
604:
368:
250:
In May 1944, while trying to keep the shed in repair with an
881:, AC 192 (21 January 1952) (on appeal from Canada)
853:, published 27 November 2012, accessed 27 February 2023
353:
In this case, another form of liability for damage was
316:
The conduct of the Crown's employees did not amount to
156:
146:
141:
115:
110:
87:
82:
71:
63:
53:
34:
102:(Canada), reversing judgments of Angers J in the
193:, concerning the interpretation of unfair terms
890:Confirmed as being applicable in Quebec law by
501:Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd
326:CSL appealed the ruling to the Privy Council.
616:
380:
334:Appeal was allowed against the SCC judgment.
231:. The lease contained the following clauses:
8:
738:Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive
704:Stewart Gill Ltd v Horatio Myer & Co Ltd
892:The Glengoil Steamship Company v Pilkington
623:
609:
601:
387:
373:
365:
40:
31:
875:Canada Steamship Lines Limited v The King
865:, S.C. 1949 (2nd. session), c. 37, s. 3
841:
839:
835:
551:HIH Casualty Ltd v Chase Manhattan Bank
201:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
58:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
780:Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi
816:Interpreting contracts in English law
592:Interpreting contracts in English law
183:Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v The King
18:Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v The King
7:
790:Unfair terms in English contract law
658:Woodman v Photo Trade Processing Ltd
579:Oceanbulk Shipping SA v TMT Asia Ltd
565:Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd
244:manner of rights arising hereunder."
904:Alderslade v Hendon Laundry Limited
681:George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds
822:Hollier v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd
25:
716:St Albans DC v Int Computers Ltd
523:
486:
465:
444:
411:
98:, SCR 532 (23 June 1950),
806:Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
758:DGFT v First National Bank plc
670:Phillips Products Ltd v Hyland
639:Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
199:. The case was decided by the
175:Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v R
35:Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v R
1:
254:torch, an employee started a
425:Hartog v Colin & Shields
92:The King v. Canada SS. Lines
863:Supreme Court Amendment Act
428:[1939] 3 All ER 566
313:dissenting as to clause 7).
132:Lord Asquith of Bishopstone
964:
928:Canadian contract case law
811:Unfair Contract Terms Bill
727:Nash v Paragon Finance plc
537:ICS Ltd v West Bromwich BS
437:Canada Steamship Lines v R
221:Canada Steamship Lines Ltd
209:Civil Code of Lower Canada
27:Canada Steamship Lines Ltd
943:1952 in Canadian case law
923:English contract case law
787:
776:
765:
754:
745:
734:
723:
712:
699:
688:
677:
666:
654:
645:
636:
589:
575:
561:
547:
533:
512:
496:
475:
454:
433:
421:
400:
395:Construing contract terms
274:Exchequer Court of Canada
268:Exchequer Court of Canada
161:
104:Exchequer Court of Canada
39:
769:OFT v Abbey National plc
748:Consumer Rights Act 2015
483:[1976] 1 WLR 989
189:case, also relevant for
631:Sources on unfair terms
462:[1953] 2 QB 450
336:Lord Morton of Henryton
300:Supreme Court of Canada
294:Supreme Court of Canada
282:(roughly equivalent to
205:Supreme Court of Canada
151:Lord Morton of Henryton
128:Lord Morton of Henryton
948:Canada Steamship Lines
648:Sale of Goods Act 1979
583:[2010] UKHL 44
569:[2009] UKHL 38
541:[1997] UKHL 28
181:, also referred to as
879:[1952] UKPC 1
555:[2003] UKHL 6
520:[1986] QB 644
506:[1980] UKHL 2
441:[1952] AC 192
187:Canadian contract law
179:[1952] UKPC 1
76:[1952] UKPC 1
801:English contract law
479:The Diana Prosperity
259:excluded liability.
191:English contract law
47:Old Port of Montreal
692:Smith v Eric S Bush
203:on appeal from the
458:Rose Ltd v Pim Ltd
408:(1871) LR 6 QB 597
219:In November 1940,
196:contra proferentem
165:contra proferentum
938:Ships of CP Ships
796:
795:
598:
597:
298:On appeal to the
171:
170:
16:(Redirected from
955:
907:
901:
895:
888:
882:
872:
866:
860:
854:
843:
739:
705:
625:
618:
611:
602:
528:
527:
502:
491:
490:
470:
469:
449:
448:
416:
415:
389:
382:
375:
366:
355:strict liability
284:gross negligence
229:Port of Montreal
111:Court membership
44:
32:
21:
963:
962:
958:
957:
956:
954:
953:
952:
913:
912:
911:
910:
902:
898:
889:
885:
873:
869:
861:
857:
844:
837:
832:
797:
792:
783:
772:
761:
750:
741:
737:
730:
719:
708:
703:
695:
684:
673:
662:
650:
641:
632:
629:
599:
594:
585:
571:
557:
543:
529:
522:
516:Thake v Maurice
508:
500:
492:
485:
471:
464:
450:
443:
429:
417:
410:
396:
393:
363:
332:
296:
270:
265:
217:
134:
130:
126:
122:
67:21 January 1952
49:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
961:
959:
951:
950:
945:
940:
935:
930:
925:
915:
914:
909:
908:
896:
883:
867:
855:
834:
833:
831:
828:
827:
826:
818:
813:
808:
803:
794:
793:
788:
785:
784:
777:
774:
773:
766:
763:
762:
755:
752:
751:
746:
743:
742:
735:
732:
731:
724:
721:
720:
713:
710:
709:
700:
697:
696:
689:
686:
685:
678:
675:
674:
667:
664:
663:
655:
652:
651:
646:
643:
642:
637:
634:
633:
630:
628:
627:
620:
613:
605:
596:
595:
590:
587:
586:
576:
573:
572:
562:
559:
558:
548:
545:
544:
534:
531:
530:
513:
510:
509:
497:
494:
493:
476:
473:
472:
455:
452:
451:
434:
431:
430:
422:
419:
418:
404:Smith v Hughes
401:
398:
397:
394:
392:
391:
384:
377:
369:
362:
359:
351:
350:
347:
344:
331:
328:
324:
323:
322:
321:
314:
295:
292:
269:
266:
264:
261:
248:
247:
246:
245:
241:
238:
227:, part of the
216:
213:
169:
168:
162:Unfair terms,
159:
158:
154:
153:
148:
144:
143:
139:
138:
117:
116:Judges sitting
113:
112:
108:
107:
96:1950 CanLII 40
89:
85:
84:
80:
79:
73:
69:
68:
65:
61:
60:
55:
51:
50:
45:
37:
36:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
960:
949:
946:
944:
941:
939:
936:
934:
931:
929:
926:
924:
921:
920:
918:
905:
900:
897:
893:
887:
884:
880:
876:
871:
868:
864:
859:
856:
852:
848:
842:
840:
836:
829:
824:
823:
819:
817:
814:
812:
809:
807:
804:
802:
799:
798:
791:
786:
782:
781:
775:
771:
770:
764:
760:
759:
753:
749:
744:
740:
733:
729:
728:
722:
718:
717:
711:
707:
706:
698:
694:
693:
687:
683:
682:
676:
672:
671:
665:
660:
659:
653:
649:
644:
640:
635:
626:
621:
619:
614:
612:
607:
606:
603:
593:
588:
584:
581:
580:
574:
570:
567:
566:
560:
556:
553:
552:
546:
542:
539:
538:
532:
526:
521:
518:
517:
511:
507:
504:
503:
495:
489:
484:
481:
480:
474:
468:
463:
460:
459:
453:
447:
442:
439:
438:
432:
427:
426:
420:
414:
409:
406:
405:
399:
390:
385:
383:
378:
376:
371:
370:
367:
360:
358:
356:
348:
345:
342:
341:
340:
337:
330:Privy Council
329:
327:
319:
315:
312:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
301:
293:
291:
289:
285:
281:
280:
275:
267:
263:Court rulings
262:
260:
257:
253:
252:oxy-acetylene
242:
239:
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
230:
226:
225:Lachine Canal
222:
214:
212:
210:
206:
202:
198:
197:
192:
188:
184:
180:
177:
176:
167:
166:
160:
155:
152:
149:
145:
142:Case opinions
140:
137:
133:
129:
125:
121:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
100:Supreme Court
97:
93:
90:
88:Appealed from
86:
81:
77:
74:
70:
66:
62:
59:
56:
52:
48:
43:
38:
33:
30:
19:
903:
899:
894:, 28 SCR 146
891:
886:
874:
870:
862:
858:
850:
825:1 All ER 399
820:
778:
767:
756:
725:
714:
701:
690:
679:
668:
661:(1981) Ex CC
656:
577:
563:
549:
535:
514:
498:
477:
456:
436:
435:
423:
402:
352:
333:
325:
318:faute lourde
317:
297:
279:faute lourde
277:
271:
249:
218:
194:
182:
174:
173:
172:
163:
124:Lord Normand
91:
83:Case history
29:
906:, 1 KB 189
845:Wyatt, D.,
147:Decision by
120:Lord Porter
106:, ExCR 635
917:Categories
830:References
288:common law
136:Lord Cohen
78:, AC 192
72:Citations
851:Lexology
361:See also
157:Keywords
311:Locke J
272:At the
185:, is a
94:,
64:Decided
877:
215:Facts
54:Court
256:fire
286:in
919::
849:,
838:^
624:e
617:t
610:v
388:e
381:t
374:v
320:.
309:(
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
