Bentley v. Nasmith

Bentley v. Nasmith

Because Nasmith was the defendants' agent when he procured the exclusive option and failed to disclose material information that affected the property's value, he did not divest his agency or act with the required fiduciary good faith; equity therefore refuses specific performance and the appeal is allowed.

Citation
(1912) 46 SCR 477
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Joseph Bentley; Defendant Appellant: Tom Wear; Plaintiff Respondent: Samuel J. Nasmith
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 March 1912
Procedural Posture
Appeal: Specific Performance (real Estate/agency) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment below reversed; plaintiff's action for specific performance dismissed.
Legal Topics
Agent Fiduciary Duties, Disclosure of Material Information, Option to Purchase, Specific Performance, Secret Profit
Source Language
English
Agency Property Equity Contract Agent Fiduciary Duties Disclosure of Material Information Option to Purchase Specific Performance +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Bentley

Defendant Appellant

Tom Wear

Defendant Appellant

Samuel J. Nasmith

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal: Specific Performance (real Estate/agency) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the broker/agent status existed when the option was procured
  2. 2 Whether an agent must disclose material information affecting sale value before taking an option to purchase
  3. 3 Whether an agent can validly convert to purchaser without first divesting agency and making full disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

Because Nasmith was the defendants' agent when he procured the exclusive option and failed to disclose material information that affected the property's value, he did not divest his agency or act with the required fiduciary good faith; equity therefore refuses specific performance and the appeal is allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment below reversed; plaintiff's action for specific performance dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Action dismissed with costs