Schiller et al. v. Fisher et al.

Schiller et al. v. Fisher et al.

The court held that the letter accompanying the counter-offer, requesting that an initialled copy be returned "as soon as possible," showed that the parties accepted prompt return of the initialled document as satisfactory communication of acceptance; Nu-Towne initialled within the substantive time limit and returned the document promptly, so communication in the prescribed manner and time was effected and a binding contract was formed. Acceptance was therefore effective and the appeal was allowed.

Citation
[1981] 1 SCR 593
Parties
Appellant (vendor): Nu-Towne Developments Incorporated; Respondent (purchaser): Kingsmont Properties Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 June 1981
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Court of Appeal (civil Contract) / Supreme Court of Canada Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; trial judgment restored in favour of appellant Nu-Towne Developments Incorporated; costs to the appellant.
Legal Topics
Formation, Acceptance, Postal Rule, Counter Offer, Contract Interpretation
Source Language
English
Contract Property (sale of Land) Formation Acceptance Postal Rule Counter Offer Contract Interpretation

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nu-Towne Developments Incorporated

Appellant (vendor)

Kingsmont Properties Limited

Respondent (purchaser)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Court of Appeal (civil Contract) / Supreme Court of Canada Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding contract was formed by initialling and returning a counter-offer after the deadline specified in the form agreement
  2. 2 Effect of the accompanying letter requesting return "as soon as possible" on the time and mode of acceptance prescribed by clause 12
  3. 3 Applicability of the postal acceptance rule and whether communication of acceptance was required before the deadline

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the letter accompanying the counter-offer, requesting that an initialled copy be returned "as soon as possible," showed that the parties accepted prompt return of the initialled document as satisfactory communication of acceptance; Nu-Towne initialled within the substantive time limit and returned the document promptly, so communication in the prescribed manner and time was effected and a binding contract was formed. Acceptance was therefore effective and the appeal was allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; trial judgment restored in favour of appellant Nu-Towne Developments Incorporated; costs to the appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment of trial court restored