In business from 1919 to 1921, this short-lived firm was, in essence, a Canadian branch to Syracuse Sander Manufacturing Co. The business contracted with Canadian General Electric to supply the motors needed for their products. CGE agreed to carry motors in its stock, to be delivered to Canadian Sander as required. But when Canadian Sander started making sanders and then requesting motors for delivery, they discovered that there was a 6-month lead time, and that the price would be higher than contracted. Canadian Sander refused to pay the higher price, and, finding themselves without a motor supplier, wound down the business. They sued CGE but the court found that Canadian Sander did not act as to minimize the losses they suffered as the result of CGE's breach of contract; furthermore, CGE did not know that their breach of contract would result in the shutting down of Canadian Sander and so they did not need to pay damages for that result.

Information Sources

• The 1919-09-04 Iron Age carried the following news item

  The Canadian Sander Mfg. Co., Ltd., Brockvllle, Ont, has been incorporated with a capital stock of $20,000 by Arthur C. Jones. Ray L. Carter, both of Syracuse, N. Y.; John H. Craig, Solvay, N. Y., and others to manufacture machinery, engines, boilers, etc.

• From a 1919 issue of Canadian Manufacturer.

  Brockville—The Syracuse Sander Mfg. Co., Syracuse, N.Y., will establish a plant at Brockville, Ont., under the name of the Canada Sander Mfg. Co. Work will be started immediately.

• The Ontario High Court of Justice, appellate division, heard the case of Canadian Sander Manufacturing Co. v. Canadian General Electric Co., Ltd. The judgement summary, dated 1921-04-01, is as follows:

  The defendant company contracted to supply the plaintiff company (first) with 250 and (second) with 50 additional electric motors to be used as part of the equipment of machines called "sanders," all the parts of which, except the motors, were to be manufactured by the plaintiff company in its factory. It was a term of both contracts that the defendant company should carry the motors in stock at its warehouse and deliver them to the plaintiff company as required. The defendant company made default in performing the contracts; and. after the plaintiff company had made up 46 of the sanders for which it had obtained motors elsewhere, its works were "shut down." It was shown that it was impossible to purchase the motors for immediate delivery; but they could have been contracted for, for delivery in 6 or 8 months, at a price in excess of the contract price. At the trial of this action, which was brought to recover damages for breach of the contracts, an offer was made by the defendant company to supply the motors at the contract price, but on condition that they should be paid for in cash and delivered in the future:—

  Held, that the plaintiff company was justified in rejecting the offer.

  (2) That the profit that would have been made had the motors been delivered according to the contract was not the measure of damages; it was the duty of the plaintiff company to minimise the loss; as the motors were obtainable, though at an increased price and with delivery deferred, it should have procured them; and its loss for which it was entitled to be compensated was the difference in the cost plus the loss occasioned by the delay.

  (3) That, as there was nothing to show that the defendant company knew, when the contracts were made, that the result of failure to deliver would be the shutting down of the plaintiff company's factory, the awarding of damages for loss occasioned by the shutting down was not warranted.