Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Law of Contracts, second edition, is a thorough revision of this authoritative text in Irwin Law’s Essentials of Canadian Law series. It includes discussion of recent jurisprudential developments in variety of topics including: The new doctrine in Tercon Contractors Ltd. v. British Columbia (2010) for determining the enforceability and application of exculpatory clauses. The possible implications of the new doctrine of the “unconscionable term.” The effect of Shafron v. KRG Insurance Brokers (Western) Inc. (2009) on the doctrine of restraint of trade and the concept of notional severance. The implications of Fidler v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (2006) and Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays (2008) on the availability of damages for non-pecuniary injury. The ability to limit the effect of ContractA/Contract B analysis in tendering illustrated by Double N. Earthmovers Ltd. v. Edmonton (City) (2007). The ability to seek equitable compensation when equitable rescission is barred, recognized in Rick v. Brandsema (2009). \nThe book also incorporates reference to leading Canadian cases on the doctrines of consideration, duress and good faith and discussion of recent English authorities dealing with such matters as contract interpretation and the rule in Hadley v. Baxendale.\nMcCamus on Contracts is an indispensible resource for anyone interested in modern Canadian contract law.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.016 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".