Error In Substantialibus
1958-12-18 Report [1959] SCR 3 Judges Taschereau, Robert; Cartwright, John Robert; Abbott, Douglas Charles; Martland, Ronald; Judson, Wilfred On appeal from Ontario Subjects Property law Decision Content Supreme Court of Canada Shortt v. MacLennan, [1959] S.C.R. 3 Date: 1958-12-18 Russell Shortt (Defendant) Appellant; and Margaret MacLennan and Jean MacLennan (Plaintiffs) Respondents. 1958: November 3, 4; 1958: December 18. Present: Taschereau, Cartwright, Abbott, Martland and Judson JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO. Real property—Sale of land—Innocent misrepresentation by vendor—Contract affirmed by purchaser—Whether contract can be rescinded. The plaintiff, as purchaser of a farm, sued for rescission of the contract for sale on the ground of alleged fraudulent misrepresentation by the vendors. The agreement was entered into in May 1954 and the deed and a mortgage were duly executed. The plaintiff went into possession in June 1954 and did not bring his action for rescission until January 1956. The trial judge found that there had been an innocent misrepresentation by the vendors concerning the quantity of water which might be obtained from a disused well on the farm, and maintained the action. On appeal, the action was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. Held: The appeal should be dismissed; the plaintiff was not entitled to rescission. It is well-settled law that rescission of an executed contract for the sale of land will not be granted because of innocent misrepresentation—nothing short of fraud will suffice. Furthermore, the whole course of the plaintiff’s conduct established on his part an election to affirm the contract. The long lapse of time without complaint or repudiation, and his acts in working the farm and drilling two new wells, showed an intention to affirm the contract and were strong indications that he was not really persuaded by whatever was said by the vendors, and these conversations did not therefore amount to misrepresentation inducing the contract. APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario[1] reversing a judgment of Spence J. Appeal di
Upload Documents Write Course Advice Refer your Friends Earn Money Upload Documents Apply for Scholarship Create Q&A pairs Become a Tutor Find Study Resources by School by Literature Guides by Subject Get Instant Tutoring Help Ask a Tutor a Question Use Flashcards View Flashcards Create Flashcards Earn by Contributing Earn Free AccessLearn More > Upload Documents Write Course Advice Refer your Friends Earn MoneyLearn More > Upload Documents Apply for Scholarship Create Q&A pairs Become a Tutor Are you an educator? Log in Sign up Home University of Edinburgh LAW LAW M114 Contract Law - Seminar Notes - Error in Contract - Semester 2, Seminar 4 It may now be the case that an uninduced error has no SCHOOL https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/3926/index.do University of Edinburgh COURSE TITLE LAW M114 TYPE Notes UPLOADED BY connermcconnell24 PAGES 3 Click to edit the document details This preview shows pages 2–3. Sign up to view the full content. View Full Document It may now be the case that an uninduced error has no effect unless it is related to a provision of the contract – an error in transaction. • An error in motive provides no relief unless the error is induced by misrepresentation. Stewart's https://www.coursehero.com/file/p4anca8/It-may-now-be-the-case-that-an-uninduced-error-has-no-effect-unless-it-is/ Trs v Hart • The purchaser of land knew it was not burdened by a feu-duty, though the seller did not. On This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version. View Full Document finding this, the buyer asked for either reduction and restitution or, alternatively, decree binding the seller to declare the sum a real burden. • It was found that the contract could not be reformed, but reduction and restitution was granted, minus sums for improvement made. • 'when a contract has been embodied in a formal deed, it is not competent to modify its terms'. Spook Erections v Kaye • Parties entered into missives for sale of land. There was error by which the seller believed mistakenly that a lease was for 990 years, rather than 99, and was about to expire. This greatly affected its value. The error was unilateral and uninduced. • The purchaser sought implement and the seller counterclaimed for reduction on the grounds of essential error. They averred that the purchaser knew of the error and took advantage of it, making the contract void through dissensus. • It was held that error in substantialibus did not of itself exclude the consensual foundation of contract. This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document. TERM Winter '14 PROFESSOR MrMartinHogg TAGS Contract Law Click to edit the documen
be down. Please try the request again. Your cache administrator is webmaster. Generated Tue, 11 Oct 2016 17:52:56 GMT by s_wx1094 (squid/3.5.20)
be down. Please try the request again. Your cache administrator is webmaster. Generated Tue, 11 Oct 2016 17:52:56 GMT by s_wx1094 (squid/3.5.20)