McLaughlin & Co. v. Birks
The appeal was dismissed because the evidence did not establish that the appellant had earned the claimed commission or that a binding commission agreement was performed; therefore respondent was not liable.
- Citation
- [1925] SCR 690
- Parties
- Appellant / Plaintiff: A. W. McLaughlin & Co.; Respondent / Defendant: Birks
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 18 June 1925
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal (brokerage/agency) / Decision on Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- Broker's Commission, Mortgage Loan Negotiation, Principal Agent, Burden of Proof
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
A. W. McLaughlin & Co.
Appellant / Plaintiff
Birks
Respondent / Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (brokerage/agency) / Decision on Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether respondent liable to pay $5,000 broker's commission
- 2 Whether appellant procured the mortgage loan or otherwise fulfilled conditions entitling it to commission
- 3 Whether the evidence established a binding commission agreement or breach entitling appellant to damages
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the evidence did not establish that the appellant had earned the claimed commission or that a binding commission agreement was performed; therefore respondent was not liable.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment