A shield, not a sword
Gilbert Steel Ltd. v. University Const. Ltd.
(1976), 12 O.R. (2d) 19, 67 D.L.R. (3d) 606 (C.A.)
Both A and R had orally agreed
to change the contract price A billed for steel.
But when the bill came R would not concede
the obligation owed to A was real.
“Consideration wants: he cannot sue.
I promised much—in what way has he paid?”
“But surely, A replied, I lost my due
under the first when second contract made.”
“‘Tis clever, said the judge, but you had pled
you understood the contract was the same.
You could but gain! Be fair? I’m sure you’ve read
estoppel’s a defence, but not a claim.”
A change in terms, and cost’s negotiable,
needs quid pro quo to be enforceable