In the case of Chalmers Suspensions International Ltd. v. B&B Automation Equipment Inc., 2008 CanLII 15767 (ON S.C), the court was asked to answer the following:
i) Was there a condition implied in the contract that the robotic machine be suitable for the purpose specified by Chalmers?
ii) If so, was the condition breached?
iii) If the condition was breached, what was Chalmers’ remedy?

How did the court respond, and why?

Question

In the case of Chalmers Suspensions International Ltd. v. B&B Automation Equipment Inc., 2008 CanLII 15767 (ON S.C), the court was asked to answer the following:
i) Was there a condition implied in the contract that the robotic machine be suitable for the purpose specified by Chalmers?
ii) If so, was the condition breached?
iii) If the condition was breached, what was Chalmers’ remedy?

How did the court respond, and why?

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of In the case of Chalmers Suspensions International Ltd. v. B&B Automation Equipment Inc., 2008 CanLII 15767 (ON S.C), the court was asked to answer the following:
i) Was there a condition implied in the contract that the robotic machine be suitable for the purpose specified by Chalmers?
ii) If so, was the condition breached?
iii) If the condition was breached, what was Chalmers’ remedy?

How did the court respond, and why?

In the Case of Chalmers Suspensions International Ltd