Doucette V. Great Blue Heron
Multiple Case Analysis – Frustration
Folia v. Trelinski, Doucette v. Jones, and Cowie v. Great Blue Heron Charity Casino are legal cases that deal with what constitutes the frustration of a contract. These cases are crucial with regards to clarifying frustration within a business transaction and employer-employee relations, and present consistent interpretations to determine whether a contact has been frustrated.
Case 1: Folia v. Trelinski - [1997] B.C.J. No. 2417, 36 B.L.R. (2d) 108, 32 R.F.L. (4th) 209, 14 R.P.R. (3d) 5, 74 A.C.W.S. (3d) 952
Juliana Folia (The Plaintiff) transferred property to Maria and Hubert Trelinski (The Defendants), her daughter and son-in-law. In exchange, the defendants promised the plaintiff could live with them, with the provision of food and care. Eventually, the defendants stopped providing her with food and asked the plaintiff to leave the house. When the case was brought forward in court, there was uncertainty with regards to the validity of the agreement. The judge then concluded that the agreement was enforceable. The defendants thus acknowledged the contract, but contended it was frustrated by means of the parties’ inability to live together. …show more content…
The change must completely affect the nature, purpose, effect and consequences of the contract for both parties, and must have brought unforeseeable and radical change. The judge concluded that no authority was cited indicating the strained relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. The contract was not impossible to perform. The hardship and inconvenience are not valid grounds for the defendants to go back on their promise to care for the plaintiff. Therefore, the contract was not frustrated.
Case 2: Doucette v. Jones - [2006] N.B.J. No. 225, [2006] A.N.-B. no 225, 2006 NBCA 38, 299 N.B.R. (2d) 288, 18 B.L.R. (4th) 185, 24 E.T.R. (3d) 167, 148 A.C.W.S. (3d) 640, 2006 CarswellNB
Folia v. Trelinski, Doucette v. Jones, and Cowie v. Great Blue Heron Charity Casino are legal cases that deal with what constitutes the frustration of a contract. These cases are crucial with regards to clarifying frustration within a business transaction and employer-employee relations, and present consistent interpretations to determine whether a contact has been frustrated.
Case 1: Folia v. Trelinski - [1997] B.C.J. No. 2417, 36 B.L.R. (2d) 108, 32 R.F.L. (4th) 209, 14 R.P.R. (3d) 5, 74 A.C.W.S. (3d) 952
Juliana Folia (The Plaintiff) transferred property to Maria and Hubert Trelinski (The Defendants), her daughter and son-in-law. In exchange, the defendants promised the plaintiff could live with them, with the provision of food and care. Eventually, the defendants stopped providing her with food and asked the plaintiff to leave the house. When the case was brought forward in court, there was uncertainty with regards to the validity of the agreement. The judge then concluded that the agreement was enforceable. The defendants thus acknowledged the contract, but contended it was frustrated by means of the parties’ inability to live together. …show more content…
The change must completely affect the nature, purpose, effect and consequences of the contract for both parties, and must have brought unforeseeable and radical change. The judge concluded that no authority was cited indicating the strained relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. The contract was not impossible to perform. The hardship and inconvenience are not valid grounds for the defendants to go back on their promise to care for the plaintiff. Therefore, the contract was not frustrated.
Case 2: Doucette v. Jones - [2006] N.B.J. No. 225, [2006] A.N.-B. no 225, 2006 NBCA 38, 299 N.B.R. (2d) 288, 18 B.L.R. (4th) 185, 24 E.T.R. (3d) 167, 148 A.C.W.S. (3d) 640, 2006 CarswellNB