Peters & Co. v. Worrall

Peters & Co. v. Worrall

Because the attorneys for the parties knew of the £100 error when they negotiated and acted on that understanding, the settlement was valid and could not be upset; allowing the appellant the £100 deduction would grant an unjust advantage, so the respondent was entitled to recover the full amount of the note.

Citation
(1902) 32 SCR 52
Parties
Appellant (defendant): John Peters & Co.; Respondent (plaintiff): Mary Worrall
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 February 1902
Procedural Posture
Action for Account; Promissory Note Given in Compromise / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; judgment for respondent for the full amount of the note; costs to respondent.
Legal Topics
Compromise and Settlement, Mistake, Rectification, Consideration, Account and Agency Duties
Source Language
English
Agency Contract Equity Civil Procedure Compromise and Settlement Mistake Rectification Consideration +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Peters & Co.

Appellant (defendant)

Mary Worrall

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Action for Account; Promissory Note Given in Compromise / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a compromise can be set aside for a subsequently discovered accounting error
  2. 2 Whether the promissory note given in compromise was without consideration due to the error
  3. 3 Whether the note should be rectified to reflect the payment

Ratio Decidendi

Because the attorneys for the parties knew of the £100 error when they negotiated and acted on that understanding, the settlement was valid and could not be upset; allowing the appellant the £100 deduction would grant an unjust advantage, so the respondent was entitled to recover the full amount of the note.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed; judgment for respondent for the full amount of the note; costs to respondent.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Cross-appeal allowed; respondent entitled to recover the full amount of the promissory note.