Nav Canada: A Review after a Decade of Uncertainty

ResearchSpace Repository

Show simple item record Roberts, Marcus en 2019-03-01T02:59:24Z en 2018-03 en
dc.identifier.issn 0319-3322 en
dc.identifier.uri en
dc.description.abstract The Canadian case law concerning variation agreements has been confused in the decade after the New Brunswick Court of Appeal’s decision in Nav Canada v Greater Fredericton Airport Authority Inc. There have been four different answers given to the question of whether variation agreements require consideration to be binding. Two of the answers (the practical benefit test for consideration and the reliance-focussed approach) are unsuitable and should not be followed. There are only two coherent and attractive answers: to embrace Nav Canada fully; or to return to the pre-existing duty rule. Of the two, the pre-existing duty rule is the least problematic and should be returned to by the Canadian courts in the future. But whichever approach is taken, the courts need to decide on an approach to clarify an uncertain area in Canadian contract law. en
dc.description.uri en
dc.publisher Canada Law Book Inc en
dc.relation.ispartofseries Canadian Business Law Journal en
dc.rights Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Previously published items are made available in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. en
dc.rights.uri en
dc.title Nav Canada: A Review after a Decade of Uncertainty en
dc.type Journal Article en
pubs.issue 2 en
pubs.begin-page 201 en
pubs.volume 60 en
dc.rights.holder Copyright: The author en en
pubs.end-page 233 en
dc.rights.accessrights en
pubs.subtype Article en
pubs.elements-id 760860 en Law en Faculty Administration Law en
pubs.record-created-at-source-date 2019-02-01 en 2018-03 en

Files in this item

Find Full text

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


Search ResearchSpace

Advanced Search