Reference no: EM132640808

CASE LAW

Zippy Print Enterprises Ltd. v. Pawliuk, 1994 CanLII 1756 (BC CA)

Simply add information in such a manner:

1) Area of law

2) Facts

3) Issues

4) Decision

Please organised this way:

1. Briefly describe and explain the area of law.

2. Summarize the important facts (related to that area of the law).

3. State the main legal issue(s) (those that reflect the area of law above).

4. State the Court's decision and the reasons for it. (This should show how the main legal issues are resolved one way or another explaining the argument or reasoning used by the Court and the counter-argument. You should explain how the court's reasoning meets the argument(s) of the losing side. If the court did not report the counter-argument, there is nothing to be stated in this regard.

Case Law Information:

This appeal relates to the disintegration of a Zippy Print franchise in Prince George. There are three principal issues. The first issue relates to the interpretation of the license agreement and to the applicability of the rule in New Zealand Shipping Company Limited v. Société des Atéliers et Chantiers de France, [1919] A.C. 1 (H.L.) to the effect that a party cannot be permitted to gain an advantage from that party's own wrongful act, unless that outcome is specifically contemplated in the relationship between the parties. The second issue relates to the applicability of exclusion clauses to pre-contractual representations. The third issue relates to the doctrines of acquiesence, waiver, election, estoppel and laches where the relationship between the parties continues for some time after the falsity of a pre-contractual representation has become apparent.

This case was tried under Rule 18A on 19 November, 1993 on the application of the plaintiff, Zippy Print Enterprises Ltd. The defendants had answered Interrogatories. Extensive affidavits were filed by the personal defendants, Ernie Pawliuk, Jill Peniuk and Ronnie Wayne Peniuk in the two days before the hearing. On the day of the hearing itself an affidavit of James Hodge, by then a former president of Zippy Print, was filed on behalf of the defendants. There is nothing in the reasons of the trial judge or in the factums to indicate that any adjournment of the trial was sought or denied. In those circumstances there is no basis for rejecting any of the assertions of fact in the affidavits I have mentioned. They are uncontradicted. It is apparent that the plaintiff rested its case on the interpretation of the license agreement and on the answers to the Interrogatories. Indeed, at the opening of the appellant's argument on this appeal, counsel for the appellant stressed that the importance of the appeal to his client related to the construction to be given to the standard form of license agreement.