Calloway v. Stobart Sons and Co

Calloway v. Stobart Sons and Co

Appeal dismissed because the broker did not secure a purchaser on the terms specified and the general manager lacked authority to bind the company to a sale or to promise payment of a commission without special authorization; therefore no enforceable contract for commission existed.

Citation
(1904) 35 SCR 301
Parties
Appellant Plaintiff (real Estate Broker): Joshua Calloway; Respondent Defendant (commercial Corporation): Stobart Sons and Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 December 1904
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (agency/contract) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King’s Bench for Manitoba; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Court of King’s Bench for Manitoba affirmed.
Legal Topics
Broker Commission, Authority of Corporate Officer, Implied Agency, Acceptance of Purchaser, Ratification of Acts by Corporation
Source Language
English
Agency Company Law Contract Law Real Property Commercial Law Broker Commission Authority of Corporate Officer Implied Agency +2 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joshua Calloway

Appellant Plaintiff (real Estate Broker)

Stobart Sons and Company

Respondent Defendant (commercial Corporation)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (agency/contract) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of King’s Bench for Manitoba; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a broker who produced a purchaser who deposited funds but did not conclude the sale is entitled to a commission
  2. 2 Whether the general manager had authority to bind the company to pay a commission or to sell its real estate without special authorization
  3. 3 Whether an implied contract to pay commission arose from the manager giving terms and assenting that the broker should seek a purchaser

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed because the broker did not secure a purchaser on the terms specified and the general manager lacked authority to bind the company to a sale or to promise payment of a commission without special authorization; therefore no enforceable contract for commission existed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment of Court of King’s Bench for Manitoba affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of King’s Bench for Manitoba affirmed