Background:

• Cherubini, a metal fabricator, needed TTR’s heavy-lifting services for constructing and transporting four steel bridges to Toronto.
• Cherubini claimed an informal agreement with TTR to perform all necessary moves for the project.
• TTR argued they only agreed to the first move, with subsequent moves subject to availability.

Key Facts:

• Cherubini issued a Purchase Order detailing equipment and rates but without specific timelines.
• TTR performed the first move on August 16, 2020.
• Following a disagreement and a conversation between representatives, TTR returned the equipment to their supplier, assuming the business relationship had ended.

Issues:

1. Was there a contract for TTR to perform all moves?
2. Did TTR breach this contract?
3. What damages did Cherubini suffer if there was a breach?
4. Did Cherubini fail to mitigate their damages?

Court's Analysis:

• The court found an implied contract for TTR to perform all moves, subject to equipment availability and reasonable notice from Cherubini.
• TTR did not breach the contract by returning the equipment, believing the business relationship was terminated.
• Cherubini provided reasonable notice for the next move, but TTR had arranged alternative equipment, ready at the same rates.

Conclusion:

• TTR did not breach the contract and was prepared to fulfill its obligations.
• Cherubini's decision to use another company terminated the agreement.
• Cherubini’s claim was dismissed with costs. Exact amount was not specified.