Stahl v. Miller

Stahl v. Miller

Because the evidence did not show the appellant knew his agent was one of the vendors until the written agreement was produced and he acted promptly to repudiate on discovery, the contracts were voidable for undisclosed dual agency and the appellant was entitled to rescission and repayment with interest.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1918) 56 SCR 312
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Charles Stahl; Defendant Respondent: William Miller; Defendant Respondent: John Kildall
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 March 1918
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Conflict of Interest, Dual Agency, Rescission, Agent Purchasing From Principal, Trustee Duties, Disclosure and Ratification
Source Language
english
Property Agency Trusts Equity Sale of Land Conflict of Interest Dual Agency Rescission +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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Stahl

Plaintiff Appellant

William Miller

Defendant Respondent

John Kildall

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an agent or trustee may purchase trust property for the principal without full disclosure of the agent's/trustee's interest
  2. 2 Whether the principal's delay or the fairness of the transaction bars rescission
  3. 3 Whether suing trustees in personal capacity was proper or required amendment to add trust as party

Ratio Decidendi

Because the evidence did not show the appellant knew his agent was one of the vendors until the written agreement was produced and he acted promptly to repudiate on discovery, the contracts were voidable for undisclosed dual agency and the appellant was entitled to rescission and repayment with interest.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Agreements of purchase rescinded