The Court held that revenue projections and conversion rates presented in spreadsheets and presentations as part of a multi-variable financial model did not, in context, constitute standalone representations that a client would achieve those specific outcomes merely by engaging the service provider; the figures had to be read together with all stated assumptions and inputs. On the NDRDM Representation (a future matter), the Court found TMX had reasonable grounds based on the team's prior experience in retail integration, familiarity with the client's systems, and engagement with third-party technology providers, notwithstanding subsequent delivery delays and website problems. Critically, HAG's ACL claim failed on causation because the decision-maker (Max) did not read the documents containing the pleaded representations and instead made his decision based on trust formed during a site visit, meaning there was no causal nexus between the contravening conduct as pleaded and entry into the LOE. The total and partial failure of consideration claims also failed because the monthly fee was not attributable to particular services and a substantial element of what was due under the contract had been provided.
The full text is available to signed-in members.