British Columbia Land and Investment Agency v. Ishitaka

British Columbia Land and Investment Agency v. Ishitaka

The appeal is allowed because the respondent failed to prove an actual tender or unmistakable communication of readiness to pay prior to the sale and the evidence did not establish that the mortgagee acted without good faith or recklessly improvidently; therefore the sale under the power was valid and no damages...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1911) 45 SCR 302
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: British Columbia Land and Investment Agency; Respondent / Plaintiff: Harry H. Ishitaka
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 December 1911
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (chattel Mortgage / Damages) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia reversed.
Legal Topics
Chattel Mortgage, Power of Sale, Tender, Notice of Sale, Good Faith, Damages, Priorities and Hypothecs
Source Language
english
Property Equity Commercial Law Civil Procedure Chattel Mortgage Power of Sale Tender Notice of Sale +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

British Columbia Land and Investment Agency

Appellant / Defendant

Harry H. Ishitaka

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (chattel Mortgage / Damages) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a valid tender or clear notice of readiness to redeem was made before the sale time in the notice of sale
  2. 2 Whether the mortgagee exercised the power of sale in good faith or recklessly improvidently resulting in sacrifice of goods
  3. 3 Whether goods not comprised in the chattel mortgage were wrongfully seized and sold

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed because the respondent failed to prove an actual tender or unmistakable communication of readiness to pay prior to the sale and the evidence did not establish that the mortgagee acted without good faith or recklessly improvidently; therefore the sale under the power was valid and no damages were recoverable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia reversed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia reversed