Breach of Contract


Understanding how a contract is formed is crucial for navigating the complexities of business and legal transactions. At Grigoras Law, we provide comprehensive guidance on the formation of contracts to ensure our clients are well-equipped to enter into legally binding agreements.

Key Elements of Contract Formation

A contract is essentially a promise or a set of promises that the law will enforce. For a contract to be legally binding, certain elements must be present: an offer, acceptance, and consideration. These elements ensure that there is mutual consent and an exchange of value between the parties.


An offer is a clear and definite proposal made by one party (the offeror) to another (the offeree) indicating a willingness to enter into a contract on specified terms. The offer sets out the terms and conditions that will govern the contract if accepted. It is essential for the offer to be communicated to the offeree and to remain open until it is either accepted, rejected, or revoked.

An offer can be distinguished from an invitation to treat, which is merely an invitation for others to make offers. For example, advertisements, price lists, and displays of goods in a store are typically considered invitations to treat rather than offers. This distinction is crucial because it determines when a legally binding contract is formed.


Acceptance is the unequivocal agreement to the terms of the offer. It must be communicated to the offeror and must correspond exactly with the terms of the offer, without any modifications. If the offeree changes the terms of the offer in their acceptance, it is considered a counter-offer, not an acceptance. A counter-offer effectively rejects the original offer and presents a new offer, which the original offeror can then accept or reject.

Acceptance can be communicated in various ways, including orally, in writing, or through conduct. For example, in the case of unilateral contracts, acceptance may occur through the performance of a specific act required by the offer. In bilateral contracts, acceptance typically involves a promise to perform the obligations set out in the offer.


Consideration is something of value that is exchanged between the parties. It can be a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee. Consideration is a fundamental element of a contract, as it distinguishes a binding agreement from a mere promise. The consideration must be sufficient but need not be adequate, meaning it does not have to be equal in value to what is received in return, but it must be something of value in the eyes of the law.

Additional Concepts in Contract Formation

Intention to Create Legal Relations

For a contract to be binding, there must be an intention by the parties to create legal relations. This means that the parties must intend for their agreement to have legal consequences and be enforceable by law. In commercial transactions, there is a presumption that the parties intend to create legal relations, whereas in social and domestic agreements, the presumption is usually the opposite unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.

Capacity to Contract

The parties entering into a contract must have the legal capacity to do so. This means they must be of legal age, sound mind, and not disqualified from contracting by law. For instance, minors, individuals with mental incapacities, and persons under the influence of drugs or alcohol may lack the capacity to form a binding contract.

Certainty and Completeness

For a contract to be enforceable, its terms must be certain and complete. This means that the essential terms of the contract, such as the price, quantity, and subject matter, must be clearly defined and agreed upon by the parties. If the terms are vague or incomplete, the contract may be considered void for uncertainty.

Termination of an Offer

An offer can be terminated in several ways:

  1. Revocation: The offeror can revoke the offer at any time before it is accepted, provided the revocation is communicated to the offeree.

  2. Rejection: If the offeree rejects the offer, it is terminated and cannot be accepted later.

  3. Lapse of Time: If the offer specifies a time limit for acceptance, it will terminate when that time expires. If no time limit is specified, the offer will lapse after a reasonable period.

  4. Counter-Offer: A counter-offer terminates the original offer.

  5. Death or Incapacity: The death or incapacity of the offeror before acceptance can terminate the offer, as the offeror is no longer able to enter into a contract.

Special Considerations in Contract Formation

Battle of the Forms

In commercial transactions, parties often use standard form contracts, leading to situations known as the “battle of the forms.” This occurs when each party submits their own standard terms and conditions, which may conflict. The general rule is that the contract is formed based on the last set of terms sent and accepted without objection (the “last shot” rule). However, courts may sometimes reconcile conflicting terms to reflect the parties’ true intentions.

Unilateral vs. Bilateral Contracts

Unilateral contracts involve a promise in exchange for an act, where only one party makes a promise, and the other party accepts by performing the requested act. Bilateral contracts involve mutual promises made by both parties, creating obligations for each party from the moment the contract is formed.


Key Concepts in Contract Enforcement

Doctrine of Privity

The doctrine of privity controls who can enforce the promises in a contract. Generally, only the parties involved in the contract—known as the promisor and the promisee—can enforce its terms. There are, however, exceptions to this rule, particularly in cases involving agents or third-party beneficiaries.

Privity dictates that no person outside the contracting parties can enforce the contract’s promises unless they are an agent acting on behalf of one of the contracting parties. This principle ensures that only those who have directly participated in the agreement can seek enforcement, thereby protecting the integrity of the contractual relationship.

Consideration and Enforceability

Consideration is a critical element in determining the enforceability of a contract. It refers to something of value exchanged between the parties, which can include a promise, an act, or forbearance. Without consideration, a contract may not be enforceable, as it signifies that the parties did not intend to enter into a legally binding agreement.

In some cases, a contract can be sealed, which traditionally indicates that consideration has been provided. However, this practice is less common today and is often replaced by the need for explicit consideration.

Writing Requirement

While many contracts can be oral, certain agreements must be in writing to be enforceable, according to statutes like the Statute of Frauds. This requirement applies to contracts involving the sale of goods above a certain value, real estate transactions, and guarantees. Having a written contract not only meets legal requirements but also provides clear evidence of the terms agreed upon by the parties.

Who Can Enforce a Contract?

Parties to the Contract

Typically, only the parties directly involved in the contract—the promisor and the promisee—can enforce its terms. This includes enforcing rights and obligations stipulated in the contract. In commercial agreements, this ensures that both parties are held accountable to their promises and can seek remedies if the other party fails to comply.

Third-Party Beneficiaries

There are exceptions to the doctrine of privity, where third-party beneficiaries can enforce a contract if it is clear that the contract was intended to benefit them. These exceptions are recognized under specific circumstances, such as when a contract explicitly states that a third party is to receive a benefit.

For example, in insurance contracts, a beneficiary named in the policy can enforce the contract to claim benefits, even though they were not a party to the agreement between the insurer and the policyholder.

Methods of Enforcing Promises

Contractual Devices

  1. Seal: A seal can sometimes replace the need for consideration, making the contract enforceable. This method, however, is less commonly used in modern contracts.

  2. Consideration: The exchange of value is the most common device to enforce promises within a contract. Each party must provide something of value to make the contract binding.

Promissory Estoppel

Promissory estoppel allows a party to enforce a promise even if it was not supported by consideration, provided they relied on the promise to their detriment. This principle ensures fairness by preventing a promisor from going back on their word if the promisee has reasonably relied on the promise and acted upon it.

Writing Requirement

Certain contracts must be in writing to be enforceable, such as those involving significant transactions like the sale of land or high-value goods. The Statute of Frauds stipulates that these contracts need written evidence to be legally binding. The writing requirement ensures clarity and reduces the potential for disputes by providing a tangible record of the agreement.

Privity of Contract

The privity of contract doctrine ensures that only those directly involved in the contract can enforce it. However, there are several exceptions and methods to circumvent privity:

  1. Agency: A person acting as an agent for another can create enforceable obligations on behalf of the principal.

  2. Collateral Contracts: Sometimes, a separate agreement (collateral contract) can be formed between a party and a third party to enforce terms related to the original contract.

  3. Assignment: Contractual rights can be transferred to another party through assignment, allowing the assignee to enforce the contract.

  4. Subrogation: Common in insurance, subrogation allows an insurer to step into the shoes of the insured and enforce their rights against a third party.

  5. Trust: In some cases, a contract can create a trust, allowing a third party (beneficiary) to enforce the contract.

Remedies for Breach of Contract

When a contract is breached, the non-breaching party can seek various remedies:

  1. Damages: Monetary compensation for losses resulting from the breach. This can include expectation damages, reliance damages, and restitution.

  2. Specific Performance: A court order requiring the breaching party to fulfill their obligations as specified in the contract. This remedy is often used when damages are inadequate, such as in real estate transactions.

  3. Injunctions: Court orders preventing a party from performing a specific act that would breach the contract. Injunctions can be prohibitory (preventing an action) or mandatory (requiring an action).


Determining the Terms of a Contract

Express and Implied Terms

Express Terms: These are terms that are explicitly stated by the parties during the formation of the contract. They can be written, oral, or a combination of both. Express terms are clear and agreed upon by all parties, making them the most straightforward to enforce.

Implied Terms: These are not explicitly stated but are understood to be included in the contract by law or by the nature of the agreement. Implied terms can arise from:

  1. Custom or Usage: Terms that are commonly accepted in a particular industry or trade can be implied into a contract. For example, in certain industries, it is customary to include terms about quality standards or delivery times.

  2. Business Efficacy: Terms necessary to make the contract work effectively are implied to give business efficacy to the agreement. This is often referred to as the “officious bystander test,” where it is assumed that if a bystander had asked whether a term was included, both parties would have agreed that it was.

  3. Legal Incidents: Certain terms are implied by law as a part of the type of contract entered into. For instance, contracts of employment may imply terms regarding reasonable notice periods and workplace safety.

Construction and Interpretation of Contracts

Construction: This involves interpreting the language and terms used in the contract to ascertain the parties’ intentions. The primary goal is to understand what the parties meant by the words they used, taking into account the factual matrix or context in which the contract was formed.

  1. Plain Meaning Rule: The words of the contract are given their ordinary meaning unless the context indicates otherwise. Courts focus on the language used to determine the parties’ intentions.

  2. Context and Factual Matrix: The background information and circumstances surrounding the formation of the contract are considered to give meaning to the terms. This includes the nature of the relationship between the parties and the commercial context.

  3. Commercial Reasonableness: Courts aim to interpret contracts in a way that makes commercial sense, avoiding absurd or unreasonable outcomes that the parties would not have intended.

Performance of Contracts

Duty of Honest Performance: Parties to a contract are expected to act honestly and in good faith in performing their contractual obligations. This duty, recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada, ensures that parties do not mislead or deceive each other in fulfilling their promises.

Breach of Contract: Failure to perform any term of the contract constitutes a breach. Breaches can be minor or major (fundamental). The severity of the breach determines the remedies available to the non-breaching party.

  1. Minor Breach: A partial or insignificant breach that does not undermine the overall purpose of the contract. The non-breaching party may still need to perform their obligations but can seek damages for any loss incurred.

  2. Fundamental Breach: A major breach that goes to the core of the contract, rendering it impossible to achieve the intended purpose. The non-breaching party can terminate the contract and seek damages.

Excuses for Non-Performance: Certain circumstances may excuse a party from performing their obligations under a contract, including:

  1. Force Majeure: Unforeseeable events beyond the control of the parties, such as natural disasters or acts of war, may trigger force majeure clauses, excusing performance.

  2. Frustration: When an unforeseen event fundamentally changes the nature of the contract, making performance impossible or radically different from what was agreed, the contract may be considered frustrated, releasing the parties from their obligations.

Remedies for Breach of Contract

Damages: The primary remedy for breach of contract is monetary compensation to place the non-breaching party in the position they would have been in if the contract had been performed.

  1. Compensatory Damages: These are awarded to cover direct losses and costs incurred due to the breach.

  2. Consequential Damages: These cover indirect and foreseeable losses resulting from the breach, such as lost profits.

  3. Liquidated Damages: Predetermined damages agreed upon in the contract, enforceable if they are a reasonable estimate of the actual loss and not a penalty.

Specific Performance: A court order requiring the breaching party to fulfill their contractual obligations. This remedy is typically used when damages are inadequate, such as in contracts involving unique goods or real estate.

Injunctions: Court orders that either prohibit a party from performing a specific act (prohibitory injunction) or compel them to perform a specific act (mandatory injunction). This remedy can prevent further breaches and ensure compliance with the contract.

Discharge of Contracts

Performance: The contract is discharged when all parties fulfill their obligations as agreed. Complete performance leads to the termination of contractual duties.

Agreement: Parties can mutually agree to discharge the contract. This can be done through a new agreement that replaces the original contract (novation) or through a formal release.

Breach: A significant breach can lead to the discharge of the contract, allowing the non-breaching party to terminate the agreement and seek remedies.

Frustration: The contract is discharged if an unforeseen event makes performance impossible or fundamentally different from what was agreed.


Grounds for Challenging a Contract


For a contract to be fully enforceable, all parties involved must have the legal capacity to enter into the agreement. Lack of capacity can arise from several conditions, which ensure protection for individuals who may not fully comprehend the implications of the contract.

  • Mental Incapacity: A party may lack the mental capacity to understand the nature and consequences of the contract. This can occur due to mental illness, cognitive impairment, or severe psychological conditions. If one party is mentally incapacitated at the time of contracting, the agreement can be voidable at the discretion of the incapacitated party. For example, if an individual suffering from severe dementia enters into a contract, they may not be able to understand the terms and implications, making the contract voidable.

  • Intoxication: Similar to mental incapacity, if a party was intoxicated to the extent that they could not understand the contract, it can be voidable. The intoxicated party must demonstrate that they were incapable of understanding the contract’s terms at the time of signing and that the other party was aware or should have been aware of their condition. For instance, if someone signs a contract while heavily under the influence of alcohol and lacks the capacity to understand the agreement, they may later contest the contract.

  • Infancy: Contracts entered into by minors (individuals under the age of 18) are generally voidable unless the contract is for necessaries (basic necessities like food, clothing, and shelter) or beneficial services (such as employment that benefits the minor). The law recognizes that minors may not have the maturity or understanding to enter into binding agreements, providing them with the right to void contracts. For example, a minor who purchases a luxury item may later choose to void the contract, as it is not considered a necessary item.


Misrepresentation involves a false statement of fact made by one party that induces the other party to enter into the contract. There are three types of misrepresentation, each carrying different remedies and implications:

  • Fraudulent Misrepresentation: Made with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. The misled party can rescind the contract and claim damages for any losses incurred. For example, if a seller falsely claims that a piece of property has no environmental contamination, knowing this to be untrue, the buyer may rescind the contract and seek damages for any related costs.

  • Innocent Misrepresentation: Made without knowledge of its falsity. The primary remedy is rescission, allowing the misled party to void the contract and return to their pre-contract position. Damages may also be awarded under specific circumstances. For instance, if a seller unknowingly provides incorrect information about a product’s specifications, the buyer may rescind the contract.

  • Negligent Misrepresentation: Made carelessly or without reasonable grounds for believing its truth. The misled party can seek rescission and damages. For example, if a real estate agent negligently provides false information about zoning laws, leading a buyer to purchase a property under false assumptions, the buyer can rescind the contract and seek damages.

These doctrines ensure that parties enter into contracts based on accurate and truthful information, maintaining fairness and trust in contractual relationships.


A mistake can undermine the foundation of a contract if it pertains to a fundamental aspect of the agreement. There are different types of mistakes, each with specific implications for the contract’s validity:

  • Unilateral Mistake: One party is mistaken about a fundamental fact, and the other party knows or ought to know of the mistake. The mistaken party may be able to void the contract if the non-mistaken party took advantage of the mistake. For instance, if a buyer mistakes the price of an item and the seller is aware of this error but does not correct it, the buyer may void the contract.

  • Mutual Mistake: Both parties share the same incorrect belief about a vital fact. If the mistake is material and goes to the essence of the contract, it may be voidable. For example, if both parties believe they are contracting for a specific model of car, but it turns out that the car is a different model, the contract may be voidable due to mutual mistake.

  • Common Mistake: Both parties make the same incorrect assumption about a fact that is central to the contract. If the mistake renders the contract fundamentally different from what was intended, it may be void. For example, if both parties believe that a particular artwork is an original, but it turns out to be a forgery, the contract may be void due to the common mistake.

If a mistake significantly impacts the agreement, the contract may be void or voidable, depending on the circumstances. The law aims to rectify these situations by restoring the parties to their original positions or adjusting the terms to reflect their true intentions.

Duress and Undue Influence

Contracts must be entered into freely and voluntarily. Duress and undue influence can render a contract voidable at the discretion of the coerced or influenced party, protecting individuals from being unfairly pressured into agreements.

  • Duress: Involves threats or coercion that force a party to enter into a contract against their will. This can include threats of physical harm, financial harm, or other forms of pressure. For example, if a party is threatened with violence unless they sign a contract, they may later void the contract due to duress.

  • Undue Influence: Occurs when one party exerts excessive pressure on another, often exploiting a position of trust or authority. This typically involves relationships where one party holds significant influence over the other, such as between a caregiver and a dependent. For instance, if a caregiver pressures an elderly person into signing over property, the contract may be voidable due to undue influence.

These doctrines ensure that individuals enter into contracts without being subjected to unfair pressure or exploitation.


A contract may be considered unconscionable if it is so unfair to one party that it shocks the conscience of the court. Unconscionability typically involves two main elements:

  • Procedural Unconscionability: Issues with how the contract was formed, such as lack of bargaining power, lack of understanding, or hidden terms. For example, if one party uses complex legal jargon to confuse the other party and secure unfair terms, the contract may be procedurally unconscionable.

  • Substantive Unconscionability: Unfair or oppressive terms within the contract itself. This involves terms that are excessively one-sided or harsh. For example, if a loan agreement includes exorbitant interest rates and severe penalties for late payments, it may be substantively unconscionable.

Contracts deemed unconscionable can be voided or adjusted by the court to prevent unjust outcomes. This doctrine ensures fairness and protects individuals from being taken advantage of in contractual relationships.


Contracts that involve illegal activities or are formed for illegal purposes are not enforceable. This includes agreements that violate statutes, regulations, or public policy. If the performance or formation of a contract is illegal, it can be declared void. For example, a contract for the sale of illegal drugs is void and unenforceable.


A contract may be discharged by frustration if an unforeseen event fundamentally changes the nature of the agreement, making performance impossible or radically different from what was contemplated. Frustration terminates the contract from the point of the frustrating event, releasing both parties from their obligations. For example, if a natural disaster destroys the subject matter of the contract, the agreement may be discharged due to frustration.

Limitation of Actions and Delay

Legal actions to enforce a contract must be brought within a statutory period, known as the limitation period. If this period expires, the right to enforce the contract is lost, rendering obligations unenforceable. The limitation period ensures that disputes are resolved within a reasonable time frame and provides finality to contractual relationships. For example, if a party fails to bring a breach of contract claim within the prescribed limitation period, they may be barred from pursuing legal action.

Remedies for Successfully Challenging a Contract

When a contract is successfully challenged, various legal remedies may apply, including:

  • Rescission: The contract is undone, and the parties are restored to their pre-contractual positions. This remedy is often used in cases of misrepresentation, mistake, duress, or undue influence. For example, if a contract was formed based on fraudulent misrepresentation, the misled party may seek rescission.

  • Damages: Compensation for losses incurred due to misrepresentation, duress, undue influence, or other grounds. Damages aim to place the injured party in the position they would have been in if the contract had not been formed. For instance, if a party suffers financial loss due to negligent misrepresentation, they may seek damages.

  • Reformation: The contract is rewritten to reflect the true intentions of the parties, correcting any errors or unfair terms. This remedy is used when the written contract does not accurately capture the agreement due to a mutual mistake. For example, if both parties intended to agree on a specific delivery date, but the contract incorrectly states a different date, reformation can correct this error.

  • Discharge: The contract is terminated, and parties are released from their obligations. Discharge can occur due to frustration, mutual agreement, or a significant breach by one party. For example, if an unforeseen event makes the performance of the contract impossible, it may be discharged due to frustration.


When is There a Breach of Contract?

A breach of contract occurs when one party fails to perform their obligations as specified in the contract. This failure can be partial, total, or anticipatory, and the remedies available depend on the nature and severity of the breach.

Types of Breaches

  1. Partial Breach: When a party fails to perform a portion of their contractual obligations but continues to fulfill others. This type of breach may entitle the non-breaching party to damages for the unfulfilled portion but does not necessarily lead to the termination of the contract. For instance, if a contractor completes most of the work but misses a few minor details, this is considered a partial breach.

  2. Total Breach: When a party completely fails to perform their contractual obligations. This can entitle the non-breaching party to terminate the contract and seek damages for the entire agreement. For example, if a supplier fails to deliver any goods as stipulated in the contract, it constitutes a total breach.

  3. Anticipatory Breach: When one party indicates, either through words or actions, that they will not perform their contractual obligations when they become due. The non-breaching party can choose to treat this as an immediate breach and seek remedies accordingly. For example, if a party to a contract informs the other party in advance that they will not be able to deliver the agreed-upon services, the non-breaching party can take legal action before the performance date arrives.

Remedies for Breach of Contract


Damages are the most common remedy for breach of contract. They aim to compensate the non-breaching party for the losses incurred due to the breach. There are several types of damages:

  1. Compensatory Damages: These are awarded to cover the direct losses and costs incurred due to the breach. Compensatory damages are intended to place the non-breaching party in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. For instance, if a contractor fails to complete a construction project, compensatory damages would cover the cost of hiring another contractor to finish the job.

  2. Consequential Damages: Also known as special damages, these cover indirect and foreseeable losses resulting from the breach. For example, if a supplier’s failure to deliver raw materials on time causes a manufacturing delay, resulting in lost profits, these lost profits would be considered consequential damages.

  3. Liquidated Damages: These are pre-determined amounts specified in the contract to be paid in the event of a breach. Liquidated damages must be a reasonable estimate of the actual damages and not a penalty. For example, a construction contract may include a liquidated damages clause stipulating a specific amount to be paid for each day the project is delayed beyond the agreed completion date.

  4. Nominal Damages: Awarded when a breach has occurred, but the non-breaching party has not suffered any significant loss. These are symbolic and typically involve a small monetary amount. For instance, if a breach occurs but the non-breaching party cannot demonstrate any actual financial loss, they may still be awarded nominal damages to acknowledge the breach.

  5. Punitive Damages: These are rare in contract law and are intended to punish the breaching party for particularly egregious behaviour. Punitive damages are more common in tort cases but may be awarded in contract cases involving fraud or malicious conduct.

Specific Performance

Specific performance is an equitable remedy that compels the breaching party to fulfill their contractual obligations. This remedy is typically used when monetary damages are inadequate, such as in contracts involving unique goods or real estate. For example, if a seller refuses to transfer a piece of unique artwork, the court may order the seller to deliver the artwork as agreed. Specific performance is often sought in real estate transactions where the property in question has unique characteristics that cannot be easily replicated.


Injunctions are court orders that either prohibit a party from performing a specific act (prohibitory injunction) or require them to perform a specific act (mandatory injunction). This remedy can prevent further breaches and ensure compliance with the contract. For instance, an injunction might prevent a former employee from disclosing trade secrets or engaging in activities that violate a non-compete agreement. Injunctions are particularly useful in situations where monetary damages would be insufficient to prevent ongoing or future harm.


Rescission involves canceling the contract and returning the parties to their pre-contractual positions. This remedy is often used when the contract was formed based on misrepresentation, fraud, undue influence, or mutual mistake. Rescission allows the non-breaching party to avoid the contract and be restored to their original state. For example, if a buyer is induced to enter into a contract based on fraudulent claims by the seller, the buyer can seek rescission to nullify the contract and recover any payments made.


Restitution aims to prevent the breaching party from being unjustly enriched at the expense of the non-breaching party. It involves returning any benefits or compensation received under the contract. For example, if one party has made an advance payment for goods that were never delivered, restitution would require the return of that payment. This remedy ensures that neither party benefits unfairly from a breach and restores the parties to their original positions.

Equitable Remedies

Equitable remedies are discretionary and are awarded when monetary damages are insufficient to address the harm caused by the breach. In addition to specific performance and injunctions, other equitable remedies include:

  1. Reformation: This remedy involves modifying the contract to reflect the true intentions of the parties. It is used when the written contract does not accurately capture the agreement due to errors, omissions, or fraud. For example, if both parties intended for a contract to include a specific term, but it was mistakenly omitted from the written document, reformation can correct this error.

  2. Constructive Trust: A court may impose a constructive trust to prevent unjust enrichment. This remedy is often used in cases involving fiduciary relationships or breach of confidence. For example, if a trustee misappropriates trust assets, a constructive trust can be imposed to return the assets to the rightful beneficiaries.

Non-Contractual Remedies

In some cases, remedies outside the contract may apply, particularly when the breach involves tortious conduct or statutory violations. For instance, a misrepresentation leading to a contract may result in a tort claim for deceit or negligent misrepresentation, allowing the injured party to seek damages for the tort, in addition to or instead of contract damages. Non-contractual remedies provide additional avenues for redress when the breach of contract is intertwined with wrongful conduct.

Statutory Remedies

Certain statutes provide specific remedies for breach of contract. These remedies vary by jurisdiction and the type of contract involved. For example, the Sale of Goods Act may offer remedies for breaches related to the sale of goods, such as the right to reject non-conforming goods and claim a refund or replacement. Statutory remedies ensure that specific types of contracts are governed by clear rules and protections.

Mitigation of Damages

The non-breaching party has a duty to mitigate their damages, meaning they must take reasonable steps to minimize their losses resulting from the breach. Failure to mitigate can reduce the amount of damages recoverable. For example, if a supplier fails to deliver goods, the buyer should attempt to find an alternative supplier to minimize their losses. This principle ensures that damages awarded reflect actual, avoidable losses and encourages efficient resolution of breaches.

Limitation of Actions

Legal actions to enforce a contract must be brought within a statutory period, known as the limitation period. If this period expires, the right to enforce the contract is lost, rendering obligations unenforceable. The limitation period ensures that disputes are resolved within a reasonable time frame and provides finality to contractual relationships. For example, if a party fails to bring a breach of contract claim within the prescribed limitation period, they may be barred from pursuing legal action.

Practical Considerations in Enforcing Remedies

Negotiation and Settlement

Before pursuing litigation, parties often attempt to resolve disputes through negotiation or settlement. This approach can save time, reduce costs, and preserve business relationships. Settlement agreements may include various terms, such as payment of damages, specific performance, or other mutually agreeable solutions.

Arbitration and Mediation

Alternative dispute resolution methods, such as arbitration and mediation, offer flexible and efficient ways to resolve contract disputes. These methods are often faster and less formal than court proceedings, providing parties with the opportunity to reach a mutually acceptable resolution.

  • Arbitration: A neutral arbitrator hears the dispute and makes a binding decision. Arbitration can be voluntary or mandatory, depending on the contract terms.

  • Mediation: A neutral mediator facilitates negotiations between the parties to help them reach a voluntary agreement. Mediation is non-binding unless the parties reach a settlement.

Court Proceedings

If negotiation, settlement, or alternative dispute resolution methods fail, parties may need to pursue litigation. Court proceedings involve filing a lawsuit, presenting evidence, and arguing the case before a judge or jury. The court will then determine the appropriate remedy based on the evidence and legal arguments presented.


Elements of Inducing Breach of Contract

Inducing breach of contract involves a third party intentionally causing one party to breach their contract. The elements of this tort include:

  1. Knowledge of the Contract: The third party must be aware of the existence of the contract between the original parties.

  2. Intention to Cause Breach: The third party must intend to cause one of the parties to breach the contract.

  3. Actual Breach: There must be an actual breach of the contract caused by the third party’s actions.

  4. Resulting Damage: The party suffering the breach must experience damage as a result of the breach.

Legal Implications

The tort of inducing breach of contract protects contractual relationships from undue interference by third parties. This protection is crucial for maintaining the integrity of contractual obligations and ensuring that parties can rely on their agreements without outside interference.

Common Scenarios

  1. Business Competition: A competitor persuades a supplier to breach their exclusive supply contract with another business, causing the business to suffer losses due to the disrupted supply chain.

  2. Employment Contracts: An employer induces an employee of a rival company to breach their employment contract, leading to significant operational or strategic advantages for the inducing employer.

  3. Real Estate Transactions: A third party convinces a seller to break a sales contract with a buyer in favour of a more lucrative offer, resulting in the buyer losing out on the property and incurring additional costs.

Proving the Tort

To successfully claim inducing breach of contract, the plaintiff must provide clear evidence of the third party’s knowledge, intent, and the causation of the breach. This often involves demonstrating the third party’s communications and actions that led to the breach, as well as the resulting damages suffered by the plaintiff.


Understanding the intricacies of breach of contract law is essential for protecting your rights and ensuring fair dealings. If you are facing issues related to breach of contract, having the right legal representation can make all the difference. For businesses and individuals in Toronto and throughout Ontario, Grigoras Law is the premier choice for handling breach of contract cases.

Why Choose Grigoras Law for Your Breach of Contract Case?

Expertise in Contract Law: Our legal team, led by seasoned lawyers Denis Grigoras and Rachelle Wabischewich, brings extensive knowledge and experience to every case. Breach of contract involves complex legal principles and practical applications. We navigate these complexities with precision, ensuring comprehensive legal guidance and effective advocacy across Ontario.

Client-Centric Approach: At Grigoras Law, your needs and well-being come first. We offer personalized legal solutions tailored to your unique situation, ensuring peace of mind and steadfast support throughout your legal journey. Our approach is centred on you; we listen, understand your concerns, and develop strategies that best suit your specific needs. Your satisfaction and peace of mind are our foremost priorities.

Proven Track Record: Our history of successful outcomes speaks to our ability to effectively represent clients in breach of contract cases. We have consistently helped clients protect their interests and achieve favourable resolutions. Our reputation as civil litigation lawyers in Toronto is built on a solid foundation of successful cases. We consistently achieve positive results for our clients, demonstrating our commitment to excellence.

Holistic Legal Understanding: We integrate contract law with other areas of civil and commercial litigation, allowing us to approach cases from a comprehensive perspective. Breach of contract often overlaps with issues like business disputes, negligence, and tort claims, which Grigoras Law is equipped to handle. Our multifaceted expertise ensures no stone is left unturned, whether you are asserting your rights or defending against allegations. Our team possesses in-depth knowledge across various areas of law, enabling us to provide holistic and nuanced legal support.

Convenient and Accessible: Based in the heart of Toronto, Grigoras Law is your local legal partner, easily accessible to clients throughout the GTA and Ontario. We are dedicated to providing expert legal support right when you need it most. Our central location ensures that you can easily reach us, and we are committed to serving clients from all corners of Ontario with the same level of dedication and expertise.

A Team You Can Trust: Our exceptional legal team, led by Denis Grigoras and Rachelle Wabischewich, is committed to your success. We pay close attention to every detail, respond promptly to your needs, and work tirelessly to find unique and effective solutions. With us, you’re not just getting legal support; you’re gaining partners who genuinely care about your situation. Our team is known for its dedication, professionalism, and unwavering commitment to our clients’ well-being.

Tailored Legal Strategies: At Grigoras Law, we understand that every breach of contract case is unique. We take the time to understand the specifics of your situation and tailor our legal strategies accordingly. Whether you are dealing with issues related to contract formation, performance, or enforcement, we develop a customized approach to achieve the best possible outcome for you.

Comprehensive Support: We provide comprehensive support for all aspects of your breach of contract case. From gathering evidence and building a strong case to representing you in court, we are with you every step of the way. Our thorough and strategic approach ensures that all bases are covered, giving you the confidence that your case is in capable hands.

Protecting Your Interests: In today’s competitive business environment, protecting your contractual rights is vital. We understand the importance of safeguarding your interests and take a proactive approach to ensure that your rights are protected. Our team works diligently to address any breach of contract issues promptly and effectively, minimizing the impact on your business and its future.

Navigating Complex Legal Challenges: Breach of contract cases can be complex, often involving multiple legal issues. Our team’s holistic understanding of the law allows us to navigate these challenges with ease. We are adept at handling cases where breach of contract intersects with other areas of civil and commercial litigation, ensuring that no detail is overlooked.

Take Control of Your Legal Situation

Protecting your contractual rights and interests is crucial in today’s world. When facing breach of contract issues, seek the guidance of Grigoras Law, your trusted ally in civil and commercial litigation. We are here to represent you, ensuring you have the advocacy and expertise needed to navigate your legal challenges. Take control of your legal situation with confidence, knowing that you have a dedicated and skilled legal team by your side.

Contact Grigoras Law Today

If you are dealing with a breach of contract issue or facing allegations of breach, don’t hesitate to reach out to our qualified Toronto civil litigation lawyers. We proudly represent clients across Ontario. Our team is dedicated to offering bespoke solutions, attentively crafted to suit your distinct needs. Choose Grigoras Law for a dedicated and skilled legal team ready to stand by your side every step of the way. We prioritize delivering a high standard of professional service, ensuring every aspect of your case receives focused and expert attention.

At Grigoras Law, we understand the profound impact that a breach of contract can have on your business and its operations. Our commitment to excellence, client-centric approach, and proven success make us the ideal partner for your breach of contract case. Trust us to protect your interests and provide the robust legal support you need.


Disclaimer: The answers provided in this FAQ section are general in nature and should not be relied upon as formal legal advice. Each individual case is unique, and a separate analysis is required to address specific context and fact situations. For comprehensive guidance tailored to your situation, we welcome you to contact our expert team.

Damages, often manifested as monetary compensation, remain the primary remedy when a contract is breached. The cornerstone of determining the appropriate quantum of these damages is the compensation principle. This principle dictates that damages should mirror the loss experienced by the innocent party due to the contract breach. Hence, in theory, the awarded damages should place the innocent party in a position akin to if the contract had been satisfactorily executed.

However, the compensation principle is rife with complexities. For instance, one must decipher what the law deems relevant when assessing the position the innocent party should be placed in post-breach. The principle may at times not capture the actual state of affairs, especially if considering rules that limit certain types of compensation. An example would be when a seller fails to deliver agreed-upon goods, and the buyer is limited to recovering the difference between the contract price and the market price. Such rules might not address non-tangible losses like disappointment. The underpinnings of these conventional limits are not strictly rooted in the compensation principle but are typically acknowledged, often resulting in the innocent party being undercompensated.

The nature of the incurred loss dictates the compensation needed to restore the innocent party’s position. Losses might stem from lost profits or unforeseen expenses resulting from the breach. An oversimplification would be to suggest that the innocent party must choose either lost profits or additional expenses as their loss metric. It’s essential to note that ascertaining these losses is a detailed endeavour and can become convoluted if facts aren’t clearly understood.

In line with the compensation principle, it’s argued that damages shouldn’t elevate the innocent party’s position beyond what it would have been if the contract had been fulfilled. For example, if a building owner’s property was damaged due to a contract breach, the awarded damages would factor in the building’s age and its expected lifespan. Similarly, if a tenant damages leased premises, the wear and tear expected over the lease’s duration would be considered when awarding damages.

In situations where there’s a significant discrepancy between the cost of proper contract performance and the loss in value, courts tend to favour the lesser amount. Additionally, in cases of alternative contract performance options, losses are usually calculated assuming the breaching party would have chosen the most financially favourable method for themselves and the least beneficial for the innocent party.

“Extended damages” remains a nebulous term, generally referring to losses not traditionally covered by the compensation principle. Two such types are “consumer surplus” and damages for mental distress or lost enjoyment. For instance, a consumer might not suffer economic loss when a product isn’t delivered as promised but might experience disappointment. This emotional aspect is starting to gain recognition in courts. Additionally, there’s a growing acceptance for damages pertaining to loss of enjoyment or mental distress in select cases, like when there’s an implicit promise of peace of mind or pleasure.

Interestingly, while mental distress caused by wrongful dismissal was once overlooked by the Supreme Court of Canada, there’s now acknowledgment that such distress could be foreseeable upon the creation of certain contractual relationships.

Drawing from tort law, principles of contribution and apportionment might find relevance in contract breaches, especially when there’s shared responsibility for a loss. However, this application is debated, and in some scenarios, risk allocation might render one party’s negligence irrelevant.

Another essential concept is causation. The aggrieved party must demonstrate that the breach directly resulted in the loss. In situations where the breaching party’s actions obscure the proof of loss or they withhold pertinent information, assumptions often swing against them. When awarding damages, courts aim to be as precise as possible. However, due to unforeseen factors, estimations might lack accuracy. Sometimes, contracts are breached, depriving one party of potential opportunities; courts have compensated for this “loss of chance.”

Damages are generally limited to foreseeable losses or those that both parties had contemplated upon contract initiation. However, what’s deemed foreseeable isn’t the sole determiner of liability. The principle of mitigation, or the doctrine of avoidable harms, emphasizes that an aggrieved party should act reasonably to minimize losses post-breach.

Equitable remedies, such as specific performance and injunctions, also play a pivotal role in addressing contract breaches. These remedies act on the conscience and consider the concept of beneficial ownership. While they are discretionary, their application is grounded in well-established legal principles. Specific performance, for instance, is an option when damages are deemed inadequate. The doctrine of mutuality once suggested that both parties to a contract could seek specific performance. However, this doctrine has evolved, now being absorbed into broader principles preventing injustice or unfairness.

Lastly, hardship can sometimes be a factor in refusing specific performance. Ideally, such hardships should be post-contractual, ensuring fairness in execution.

Yes, it’s possible to challenge a contract that you were pressured to sign. There are several legal doctrines that allow for this, with undue influence being one of the most significant.

In legal terms, undue influence occurs when a person uses their power over another to convince them to enter into a contract. This doctrine is equitable in nature, meaning it’s based on fairness. This concept differs from duress, which focuses on the circumstances during the creation of a contract, while undue influence examines the broader relationship between the parties involved.

To establish undue influence, there must be proof of two elements:

  1. A relationship capable of giving rise to the necessary influence.
  2. Evidence that the influence generated by the relationship was abused.

The relationship can either be “proved” or “presumed,” but it must be shown to have been exploited.

Three scenarios are generally used to establish a relationship affected by undue influence:

  1. Irrebuttable Presumption of Undue Influence: This situation occurs when the relationship falls into specific categories that the law recognizes as inherently having an imbalance of power, such as parent-child or doctor-patient. In these cases, the law presumes that one party had influence over the other.

  2. Rebuttable Presumption of Undue Influence: In these situations, there’s proof that one person placed trust or confidence in the other, and there’s a questionable nature to the transaction. The law will presume undue influence, but this presumption can be refuted.

  3. Relationship of Actual Undue Influence: This category applies to situations that don’t fit into the other two. Here, there is proof of actual pressure, and the transaction might be better seen as economic duress.

The concept of undue influence has been widely accepted in Canada, with the Supreme Court of Canada recognizing it in the case of Geffen v. Goodman Estate.

Once undue influence is established, the burden shifts to the defendant, who must show that the plaintiff entered into the contract as a result of their own “full, free, and informed thought.” The defendant can demonstrate this through evidence that no actual influence was deployed in the transaction, that the plaintiff had independent advice, or that the contract was not unfairly advantageous to the defendant or disadvantageous to the plaintiff.

It’s also possible for a third party to exert undue influence on a contracting party. However, for this undue influence to be actionable, that third party must be acting either as an agent for one of the contracting parties or with the notice of that party. A classic example is a spouse who exerts undue influence on their partner to sign a contract with a third party, such as a bank.

In summary, if you were forced to sign a contract due to the undue influence of another party, you can challenge the contract. The contract could be rescinded, or made void, if you can successfully demonstrate that undue influence was exerted. It’s always advisable to seek legal advice if you believe you’ve been a victim of undue influence.

  1. A contract’s enforceability when a mistake is present depends on the nature and type of mistake involved. Mistakes in contracts can be complex, and the law surrounding them is one of the least certain areas of contract law.

    1. Types of Mistakes:

    a. Unilateral Mistake: Where one party is mistaken, and the other is not.
    b. Mutual Mistake: Where both parties have conflicting mistakes.
    c. Common Mistake: Where both parties share the same mistake about the contract.
    d. Mistake in the Written Record: A typographical error, dealt with through rectification.

    2. Legal Treatment of Mistakes:

    a. Non Est Factum: This concerns a major mistake about the nature of the written contract. Courts might void a contract if it is fundamentally different from what one party believed they were signing.
    b. Mistake as to Content or Terms: If the mistake relates to the essential terms, it may render the contract void or voidable.
    c. Mistake as to Assumptions: If a mistake regarding the identity of a party or a significant contextual assumption is present, specific legal principles may apply.
    d. Rectification: This applies to mistakes in the written evidence of the contract, not the agreement itself, and serves to correct typographical errors.

    3. Common Law vs. Equitable Principles:

    The law on mistake is sometimes handled at common law and other times considered under equitable principles. There are rarely statutory provisions governing the law of mistake. The distinction between legal and equitable principles can create confusion and make the application of precedents difficult.

    4. Uncertainty in Law:

    The principles and circumstances in which the courts will intervene for mistakes in contracts have not been precisely settled. Different cases may have varying interpretations, and some decisions may be difficult to reconcile.


    The enforceability of a contract in the presence of a mistake depends on various factors, including the type of mistake and the specific circumstances surrounding it. It is a nuanced area of law with significant complexities. If a mistake is believed to have occurred in the formation of a contract, seeking legal advice from a professional experienced in contract law is strongly recommended, as the application of the law may differ based on individual situations and jurisdictions.

Yes, a contract may be breached through what is known as an “anticipatory” or “repudiatory” breach. This type of breach occurs when a party to the contract informs the other party that they will not be performing their contractual obligations when the time comes, or it becomes evident in advance that they will not be able to fulfill their end of the deal without any valid excuse such as frustration to relieve them from liability. This has been affirmed in several legal cases.

An anticipatory breach can also be referred to as a “renunciatory” breach. In the context of an anticipatory breach, the innocent party has two options:

  1. Accept the Breach: The innocent party can accept the anticipatory breach and proceed to remedies immediately.

  2. Affirm the Contract: Alternatively, the innocent party may choose not to accept the early breach and wait for the time or times when the contract requires performance, seeking remedies only if the breaching party fails to perform.

The decision to accept or reject the anticipatory breach must be clearly evidenced. The party in breach cannot complain if sued immediately for compensation by the injured party.

The anticipatory renunciation can be expressed through words, conduct, or both, and the party must “evince an intention” not to go on with the contract.

In some cases, the innocent party may have no real choice but to accept the repudiation if the actions of the breaching party make it impossible for them to carry on with their obligations. When the innocent party does have a choice, clear evidence must exist that the anticipatory breach has been accepted, and subsequent acts of the innocent party may be taken as such evidence.

In conclusion, if the other party tells you they cannot fulfill their end of the deal, it can indeed amount to a breach of contract, specifically an anticipatory or repudiatory breach. Your response as the innocent party will determine whether you accept this breach immediately or affirm the contract, awaiting actual failure to perform. Legal counsel should be sought to navigate the specific circumstances and potential remedies available in any given situation.

Ambiguity or internal contradictions within a contract can cause the contract to fail, leading to its unenforceability. Here’s how the situation can be broken down:

1. Uncertainty and Mistakes:

If crucial terms in the contract are ambiguous or contradictory, it may prevent the formation of a binding contract. This is because ambiguity often leads to a lack of consensus on essential terms. The classic case of Raffles v. Wichelhaus exemplifies this, where two parties referred to two different ships named “Peerless,” and the court ruled that no binding contract existed. This type of uncertainty often gives rise to claims of mistake about the contract’s content, and such mistakes can affect the contract’s existence or enforceability.

2. Statutory Assistance:

In some instances, statutory definitions and rules might be helpful in resolving ambiguity or contradiction. Although unusual, laws related to the specific type of contract, or even the Interpretation Act of a given jurisdiction, might provide guidance. These legal tools are typically aimed at interpreting statutory language rather than contractual language but may still be of assistance.

3. Interpreting the Contract:

Courts often engage in contract interpretation to determine the terms and save the contract from failing due to uncertainty. Various cases showcase different attitudes towards this approach:

However, there are instances where no amount of judicial effort can render certainty (e.g., Scammell & Nephew Ltd. v. Ouston).

4. “Subject to” Clauses:

Ambiguity may arise from “subject to” clauses or conditions precedent. These are terms that must occur before the contract is enforceable. In some cases, these conditions are clear, such as payment being contingent on delivery. In others, the condition precedent might cause uncertainty, leading to a question of whether a binding contract exists.


Ambiguity in contracts may lead to various legal challenges and interpretations. The ambiguity may render the contract void or necessitate judicial interpretation to find a reasonable and fair understanding of the terms. Courts generally strive to find a meaning in the words used by the parties, but sometimes, the ambiguity is insurmountable. In commercial contexts, courts often favour an approach that sustains an agreement rather than nullifying it due to minor uncertainties. The specific response to ambiguity will depend on the particular contract, its context, the laws governing it, and the precedents set by previous relevant cases.

Intoxication as a Ground for Voiding a Contract

The law recognizes intoxication as a potential ground to void a contract, but the application of this principle depends on various factors.

Intoxication and Capacity to Contract

In accordance with Canadian jurisprudence (exemplified in the case of Bawlf Grain Co. v. Ross), intoxication can render a person unable to understand what is being entered into, thereby lacking the capacity to contract.

Requirements to Void a Contract on the Ground of Intoxication

  1. Degree of Intoxication: The intoxication must be to a level where the party “was so drunk that he did not know what he was doing.” A mere claim of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs is not sufficient. The impairment must be to an extent that the party did not understand the nature and consequences of the agreement. This is a question of fact and must be assessed on a contract-by-contract basis.

  2. Knowledge of the Other Party: If the other party to the contract is or ought to be aware of the intoxication and that it renders one party unable to understand the contract, it can affect the contract’s enforceability. This aligns with the general principles concerning mental incapacity, where unfair advantage is not taken of the other’s weakened state.

  3. Habitual Intoxication: A person who is habitually drunk might not necessarily be so intoxicated at the time of entering a particular contract to render it voidable, as emphasized in the case of Murray v. Smith Estate.

  4. Ratification or Repudiation: A contract voidable due to intoxication can be ratified or repudiated when the person becomes sober. However, if the contract is not repudiated within a reasonable time, it will be deemed to have been ratified. For example, in the above Bawlf Grain Co. v. Ross case, a delay of one month in repudiation resulted in the loss of the ability to void the contract.


The law acknowledges intoxication as a ground to void a contract, provided that the intoxication was severe enough to affect understanding, and that the other party was or should have been aware of this fact. The contract must also be repudiated promptly upon regaining sobriety, or the right to void may be lost. As these matters are highly fact-specific and often require careful legal analysis, consulting with a legal professional who can assess the specific circumstances of the contract and the parties involved would be advisable.

The duty to mitigate damages is a foundational principle in breach of contract law. This duty requires the non-breaching party (plaintiff) to take reasonable steps to reduce the damages they suffer due to the breach.

Understanding the Duty to Mitigate

According to common law principles, the duty to mitigate is not really a legal obligation but a factor in determining whether a claim for damages is reasonable. A plaintiff must act as a reasonable and prudent person would in their business to minimize losses. This means taking necessary steps to repair or replace malfunctioning machinery, finding replacement contracts, considering an offer of substituted performance, and seeking alternative employment if wrongfully dismissed.

When is Mitigation Required?

The time to act to mitigate depends on the circumstances, often related to when the plaintiff learns of the breach or within a reasonable time thereafter. Courts usually assess the situation considering market fluctuations, but the risk of such fluctuations is generally not placed on a plaintiff.

Is Lack of Money (Impecuniosity) an Excuse?

A plaintiff’s financial circumstances are typically not a valid reason for failing to mitigate damages. As per R.G. McLean Ltd. v. Canadian Vickers Ltd., the plaintiff’s financial difficulties are usually overlooked in assessing whether reasonable steps were taken to mitigate. Cases like Liesbosch, Dredger v. SS Edison further clarify that loss due to a plaintiff’s lack of funds is considered a separate and unrelated cause to the breach.

However, there are instances where a party’s financial situation might be known at the time the contract was entered into and could affect the damages assessment (e.g., Mundell v. Wesbild Holdings Ltd. and Southcott Estates Inc. v. Toronto Catholic District School Board).

In Summary

The duty to mitigate requires the non-breaching party to take all reasonable steps to minimize the damages resulting from a breach of contract. This may involve various actions depending on the nature of the contract and the obligations involved. Generally, the plaintiff’s financial inability to take such steps is not considered a valid excuse for failing to mitigate. But in certain circumstances, a plaintiff’s financial situation might be a relevant factor, especially if it was known to the breaching party at the time of the contract. It is essential to consult with a legal professional to understand the specific duties and exceptions in the context of your situation, as this principle can be complex and varies with the facts of each case.

Experience and knowledge.

Talk to a Breach of Contract Lawyer

Facing a breach of contract issue? At Grigoras Law, our skilled lawyers provide expert guidance to protect your rights and achieve favourable outcomes. Contact us today!

breach of contract lawyer