A detailed online estimate with no reasonable basis can expose you to misrepresentation or negligence — even when labelled "estimate"
Summary
Claim: A provider can be liable in misrepresentation if an estimate is false/misleading or has no reasonable basis, and in negligence if it is negligently given — even when labelled "estimate." Courts (Croshaw v Pritchard line) decide estimate-vs-quote on what a reasonable person would understand, not solely on the label.
Source: Fenwick Elliott Grace (construction law firm) https://feg.com.au/construction-law-updates/can-an-estimate-be-binding/ ; corroborated by League & Williams (above).
Confidence: Verified.
Caveat: Australian + commonwealth jurisprudence; Ontario-specific applicability not separately researched in this brief, but the principle (objective test + reasonable-basis requirement) is consistent across common-law jurisdictions.
Why this matters for Candid: The risk argument against shipping a too-precise calculator without input upkeep. Pair with Estimate vs quotation — the legal distinction and why "it's just an estimate" may not save you and R4 — Commit to a documented input-refresh schedule before shipping any customer-facing calculator; if you won't, don't ship it.
Related entries
Referenced by (5)
- reference Research brief: customer-facing calculators & tools for SMBs — the honest case (June 2026) relates-to
- reference Source-incentive meta-finding: nearly every "calculators convert" source SELLS calculators; independent material clusters on the risks depends-on
- rule R1 — Build a customer-facing calculator only when pricing is genuinely formula-driven and buyers comparison-shop depends-on
- rule R3 — Label every published estimate as an estimate, and show its vintage prominently depends-on
- rule R4 — Commit to a documented input-refresh schedule before shipping any customer-facing calculator; if you won't, don't ship it depends-on