https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292081 The Privy Council clarified the interpretation of a contract between a building contractor and restaurant owners for renovation works. Emphasizing the need to consider all clauses together, the Council held that the third clause qualified the obligations in the first clause. The $3,000 mentioned was not a fixed price but consideration for the work. The Council upheld the Supreme Court of Ontario's judgment, allowing the appeal, restoring the order, and awarding costs to the appellant. This decision reaffirmed the importance of harmonizing conflicting clauses to give effect to the entire contract. en-us Tue, 20 Dec 1921 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Dec 2020 18:05:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292081 The Privy Council clarified the interpretation of a contract between a building contractor and restaurant owners for renovation works. Emphasizing the need to consider all clauses together, the Council held that the third clause qualified the obligations in the first clause. The $3,000 mentioned was not a fixed price but consideration for the work. The Council upheld the Supreme Court of Ontario's judgment, allowing the appeal, restoring the order, and awarding costs to the appellant. This decision reaffirmed the importance of harmonizing conflicting clauses to give effect to the entire contract. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 20 Dec 1921 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292081