Read this short case study that appeared in a CTV Toronto broadcast on Feb 10, 2015. Consider the questions that follow the case study.

--------------------------------------

An elderly Scarborough couple thought they were left out in the cold after the wood from a chopped-down tree was hauled away.

Patrice Stephen-Bourgeault and her husband, Laurent Bourgeault, usually burn firewood to keep warm during the winter. Recently, the couple agreed to have cut down a large silver maple tree that was on the property line between their home and their neighbours'.

The Bourgeaults say their neighbours, who are building a new home, agreed to pay for the tree removal. The couple believed they would be able to keep the firewood after the tree was gone. But that was not written in the contract, and the tree-removal company took the wood away.

Mrs. Bourgeault claims that she verbally insisted on two or three occasions that she be allowed to keep the wood.

"I didn't think he would take it," Stephen-Bourgeault told CTV Toronto. "I said that's my tree, that's my wood."

Surprised that they couldn't keep the firewood, the Bourgeaults contacted CTV Toronto's Pat Foran to share their story.

--------------------------------

What do you think of this situation? Without knowing any more of the details, and without having studied Contract Law - yet - do you think the Bourgeaults were justified in their expectation that the wood would be left behind as per their verbal demand? Do you think that they could have argued their case in a court of law and won? Normally, can verbal evidence be successfully introduced into an argument before a judge that might contradict the words in the contract? What rights does the arborist have? If you were judging this case, what would you do? If the couple deserved to have their wood returned to them, who would pay the expenses? The arborist? The neighbour?