Instruments that a dentist used to prepare ceramic restorations did not qualify as equipment used by him for processing goods "for sale" given that the value of the labour provided to him to his patients was always higher than that of the materials, so that it must be concluded that he had a contract for services with them rather than a contract for sale.
Topics and taglines
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
334015
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em><a name=\"Albert\"></a>Albert v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2009 DTC 1114 [at 603], 2009 TCC 16 (Informal Procedure)",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}
"field_legacy_header": "<strong><em><a name=\"Albert\"></a>Albert v. The Queen</em></strong>, 2009 DTC 1114 [at 603], 2009 TCC 16 (Informal Procedure)",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}