A rental agreement for equipment used at a mine site may be a 'construction contract' under the BCIPA even where the agreement does not expressly identify construction work as an intended use, provided it can be objectively inferred from the surrounding circumstances — including the nature of the hirer's subcontract, the parties' industry experience, and the suitability of the equipment — that the equipment was supplied for use in connection with carrying out construction work. The purposive test may be satisfied at a higher level of generality than specific identification of particular construction tasks.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.