Contract Defences

This information applies to British Columbia, Canada. Last reviewed for legal accuracy by Alison Ward in August 2018.

This section describes some of the basic grounds in common law and statute law that can help a party get out of a contract.  

Client problems

• Client did not understand the contract they were signing.

• Client was “forced” into signing a contract.

• Client signed a contract, but says they were misled about the extent of their liability.

• Client misunderstood a contract.

Summary of the law

Even with the basic elements of a contract present (see the Contracts Overview), common law and statute law provide a number of grounds for a party to avoid having a contract enforced against them. These defences to contract actions give the defending party a legal excuse to get out of the contract. Without such defences, the contract would be legally enforceable. Remedies to enforce contracts are discussed in the section on Contract Remedies. (See also the sections on Opting Out and Cooling-off Periods and  Unfair or Deceptive Practices.)

Defences versus causes of action

This section covers defences only. Defences are the grounds upon which a consumer can defend a legal action by someone seeking to enforce a contract. This is different from a “cause of action”, which is a consumer’s right to bring a legal action themselves. In some instances, some legal principles can be both defences and causes of action, depending on who is bringing the action. For example, if a consumer refuses to make payments called for in a contract, they may be able to make a defence on the grounds of unconscionability (see below). If the consumer has already paid for the goods or services, they could also use the grounds of unconscionability to bring a legal action (or “cause of action”).

Defences to liability and quantum

It is important to note the distinction between defences to liability and defences to amount, or quantum. Liability refers to the court finding someone responsible for an action or debt. If a consumer can assert no defence in an action by a creditor, the consumer is liable (or responsible) for that debt. If a consumer has paid for a defective product and gets their money back through legal action, the seller is liable for damages (the amount of money to be refunded).

If the court decides that one party should pay something to the other, the court must also decide how much should be paid. The legal term for the amount to be paid is “quantum”. Often, the amount is obvious. For example, if the consumer is liable, the creditor can usually prove the amount of the debt. If the court decides that the consumer is entitled to a refund, the amount also ought to be obvious.

In some instances, however, the issue is less clear. For example, in the case of debt, there may be disagreement over:

• Whether the debtor has been properly credited for all payments made.

• Whether the amount of interest claimed by the creditor is correct. This is a particularly complicated area where courts often have to decide whether a full or only partial refund should be awarded.


The defence of making the other side prove its case

In general, the plaintiff (the party seeking a remedy) must prove their case by presenting evidence to persuade a judge that they are entitled to the remedy. If the plaintiff is a creditor, the creditor must prove that the debtor owes the debt. If the plaintiff is a consumer, they must prove that the product they bought was defective.

The obligation on plaintiffs to prove their case means defendants need only indicate that they do not admit to the plaintiff’s claim. Defendants can do this by filing a reply in the case of Small Claims Court actions, or by filing a response in Supreme Court actions.

Plaintiffs may fail to prove their case in a number of ways:

• They may not bother to show up at court, thinking that it is not worth their time or that they may lose.
• They may not have the proper evidence, such as witnesses or documents.
• They may not be credible and so lose by not proving their case on the balance of probabilities (the likelihood that one party’s evidence is more likely to be accurate than the other’s).
• They may run afoul of some rule of evidence that does not allow them to admit evidence crucial to proving the case.

Consumer and Debt Law © People's Law School is, except for the images, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence.