IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN CIVIL DIVISION Citation: 2008 SKPC 147 Date: November 3, 2008 File: 07-1110 Location: Prince Albert Between: Brian Benson and Raymond Dobson Mr. H. Siwak For the Plaintiff Mr. J. Hardy For the Defendant DECISION S. C. CARTER, [1] The parties to this action signed handwritten agreement on the 20th day of October, 2004. The entire document reads as follows: Date 20-Oct-2004 Contract between Brian Benson and Ray Dobson This contract is to cover feeding and maintenance of about one hundred and one cows to be boarded at Brian Benson’s farm at Canwood, Sask. Conditions of this contract is as follows: 1. Brian is to provide labor and equipment necessary to feed and maintain these cows for set price of $0.50 per day per cow. 2. Ray is to provide adequate feed. This feed will be the responsibility of Brian’s to purchase at fair market price as agent for Ray. 3. Ray is responsible for all vet expenses and medical supplies. 4. Ray is responsible for all incurred costs due to trucking and transporting these cows. 5. Ray is to provide bale processor. 6. A bonus of $ is to be paid to Brian for each live calf that he gets to pasture. At the end of each month Brian is to submit an invoice to Ray for any costs associated with the above conditions. The terms of this invoice past due after 15 days is subject to 1% per month interest. THE EVIDENCE: [2] Benson took delivery of Dobson’s cows and cared for them as he had agreed to do in the October 20, 2004 contract. He looked after the cows as well as the calves as they were born. He sent monthly invoices to Dobson who paid them as they were received. Sixty calves were delivered to Dobson’s pastures in the spring of 2005. Benson did the same work for Dobson for the 2005-2006 year. No new agreement was signed but the parties conducted their business together according to the terms of the October 20, 2004 agreement with the exception that the cost of labour was raised to sixty cents per day per cow. Another sixty calves were delivered to Dobson’s pastures in the spring and early summer of 2006. [3] As to the bonus to be paid for each live calf brought to Dobson’s pastures, Benson testified that the reason the amount was left blank in the contract was because neither of them were sure what it should be. He testified that: “Later on we were going to set the price but it never happened”. He testified that he and Dobson never seemed to get chance to sit down and discuss the bonus. He had heard that some people were charging seventy dollars per calf but he felt he couldn’t charge that much. No bonus was paid for the 2004-2005 year or the 2005-2006 year. Benson testified that he never sent bill to Dobson because he didn’t know what to charge. In addition he testified that “people in our community don’t send bills, we go over to people’s places and settle up.” [4] Dobson agreed that bonus had been contemplated for the 2004-2005 year. The cows were expected to begin calving in the late winter which meant that there would be many late nights and around-the-clock vigilance. He testified that much of the extra vigilance was done by himself because Benson was not able to work around-the-clock as was required. He did not feel that bonus was appropriate given the work that he himself had to do. In the year 2005-2006 he did not contemplate payment of bonus because the cows had been more carefully bread and calving was expected to occur and did occur in the more mild temperatures of April and May. He agreed in cross-examination that bonus was requested by Benson which he refused to pay. [5] In law an agreement to come to an agreement is not enforceable. This is especially the case where an essential term, such as remuneration, has not been agreed to.[1] No consensus has been reached between the parties except that they hope to reach an agreement at some later date. [6] Benson and Dobson agreed that they would settle on the bonus amount later on but they never did. Benson thought he was still entitled to bonus. Dobson felt that bonus was not required for the first year nor did he contemplate paying one for the second year. This Court cannot now make that agreement for the parties. The plaintiff’s case as it relates to the claims for bonus payments is dismissed. [7] The plaintiff also claimed the sum of $900.00 as payment for the balance of the cost of feed for the year 2005-2006. Dobson testified that he agreed that he owed eight to nine hundred dollars to Benson. The Court has no way of accurately determining whether the figure should be $800.00 or $900.00 because the plaintiff did not have copy of the final invoice given to Dobson and he, Dobson, did not bring copy of that bill with him to Court. Because the parties are so close in their estimate as to the amount of the final cost of the feed, find that the defendant owes the plaintiff $850.00 and judgment shall issue accordingly. Because each of the parties were partially successful, there will be no order as to costs. S. C. Carter, [1] See: C.E.D. (West) (3rd) Title 34, page 206, para 9. and cases cited therein; Fridman, The Law of Contracts (2nd) page 56.
The parties entered into a handwritten agreement with regard to the feeding and maintenance of 100 cows. The plaintiff was to provide labour and the necessary equipment to feed and maintain the cows for $.50 per cow per day. The defendant was to provide the feed and medicine. At paragraph 6 the contract stipulated that the plaintiff was to receive a bonus for each live calf that he got to pasture. The amount of the bonus was left blank. The plaintiff sues the defendant, claiming a bonus for the 2004-2005 year and the 2005-2006 year. HELD: The claim is dismissed. In law an agreement to come to an agreement is not enforceable. This is especially true where an essential term regarding remuneration has not been agreed to. The parties agreed that they would settle on the bonus amount later on but they never did. The plaintiff believes he is still entitled to a bonus. The Court cannot make the agreement for the parties.