Keywords
Life, Masquerading, Contract, Supreme Court, Canada, benefit, contract, third party beneficiaries
Abstract
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the defendants in Greenwood Shopping Plaza Ltd. v. Beattie and Pettipas1 could not claim any benefit from a contract because they were third party beneficiaries thereto. Restated, the Court permitted the insurer of a building to reach through the landlord and the tenant, and recoup itself by saddling the tenant's employees with liability for negligently performing their jobs although it could sue neither landlord nor tenant. This result is so unpalatable to both business and labour that it will be avoided, and insurers will acquiesce. In this note I will, (a) by way of introduction, comment generally on the Court's judgment and set out a framework for the subsequent discussion, (b) undertake a textual analysis of the judgment rendered at each level of litigation, (c) comment on Greenwood as a third party beneficiary case, and (d) show that the case might have been differently determined had it been viewed as a landlord-tenant, insurance or employee's liability case.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.
Recommended Citation
C. M. Arymowicz, “Greenwood Shopping Plaza Ltd. v. Beattie and Pettipas: Life Masquerading as a Contract Case”, Comment, (1984) 8:1 DLJ 216.
