Territorial Court

Summary: Plaintiff was offered employment by the defendant as a teacher for which she would receive remuneration and certain benefits covered by the Collective Agreement, plus other benefits with respect to housing. Relying on representations of the defendant, the plaintiff accepted the offer. When the plaintiff relocated, however, the rent and utility payments were higher than those promised. Plaintiff sues for damages and specific performance of the contract in which the Plaintiff is responsible for the lower rent and utility charges. The court found that in addition to the employment contract which was governed by the Collective Agreement between the parties, there was a valid and enforceable collateral verbal contract for housing rent and utilities entered into. While the Collective Agreement did address housing issues, it did not state that additional agreements between the parties could not also be entered into. By making the plaintiff responsible for higher rent and utility payments than promised, the defendant was in breach of this enforceable collateral contract.
Decision: Defendant ordered to pay plaintiff damages in the amount equal to the difference between actual rent paid by plintiff and rent contracted for. Defendant to fulfill its contract for the remainder of the year or plaintiff will be entitled to file additional claims for damages
Subjects: Employment law - Contract of employment
Contracts - Collateral contracts
Landlord and tenant - Rent - Government regulation - Regulatory tribunals
Agency - Authority of agent - Apparent authority