Deloitte & Touche v. Mermavaliotakis

The inscription "Unit Park per Peter Takis" shows Takis signed as an agent for Unit Park and not in his personal capacity; therefore s.51(1) does not render him personally liable and s.131(1) does not apply because he did not sign in the trade name, so summary judgment on the cheque cannot stand on the evidentiary record.

Citation: C34026
Parties: Plaintiff (payee): Deloitte & Touche; Defendant (appellant): Peter Meramvaliotakis (aka Peter Takis)
Court: Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 9 November 2000
Procedural Posture: Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment Motion
Outcome: Appeal allowed; summary judgment dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed without costs
Legal Topics: Bills of Exchange Act, Agency, Trade Name, Summary Judgment, Personal Liability for Cheque
Source Language: English

Civil Commercial Law Negotiable Instruments Bills of Exchange Act Agency Trade Name Summary Judgment Personal Liability for Cheque

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 1

Parties

Deloitte & Touche

Plaintiff (payee)

Peter Meramvaliotakis (aka Peter Takis)

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment Motion

Legal Issues

1 Whether the signature "Unit Park per Peter Takis" renders Takis personally liable on the cheque under s.51(1) of the Bills of Exchange Act
2 Whether s.131(1) of the Bills of Exchange Act applies because Unit Park is a trade name
3 Whether any other basis for personal liability can be determined on summary judgment or requires a trial

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; summary judgment dismissed; cross-appeal dismissed without costs

Orders

Motion for summary judgment dismissed
Appellant (Takis) entitled to costs of the motion and the appeal on a party-and-party basis