Hepting et al. v. Schaaf et al.

Hepting et al. v. Schaaf et al.

Where a purchaser proves deceit in the sale of real property, the court will presume the property was worth the purchase price unless the defendant rebuts that presumption; the defendants failed to rebut it here and the agent's admissions on discovery that absence of a rentable suite reduced value by $2,500 justified restoring the trial award of $2,500 in damages.

Citation
[1964] SCR 100
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Irvin Hepting; Plaintiff/appellant: Gertrude Hepting; Defendant/respondent: Anthony Schaaf; Defendant/respondent: Katherine Schaaf; Defendant/respondent: Andrew Exner
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 December 1963
Procedural Posture
Fraudulent Misrepresentation in Sale of Real Property / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (judgment Allowing Defendants' Appeal Reversed)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Measure of Damages in Deceit, Presumption of Value From Purchase Price, Agent Liability, Rescission Vs Damages
Source Language
English
Property Law Tort (deceit) Real Estate Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation Measure of Damages in Deceit Presumption of Value From Purchase Price Agent Liability Rescission Vs Damages

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Irvin Hepting

Plaintiff/appellant

Gertrude Hepting

Plaintiff/appellant

Anthony Schaaf

Defendant/respondent

Katherine Schaaf

Defendant/respondent

Andrew Exner

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Fraudulent Misrepresentation in Sale of Real Property / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan (judgment Allowing Defendants' Appeal Reversed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants perpetrated fraud by concealment of lack of permit for a rentable basement suite
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs proved loss and the correct measure of damages for deceit
  3. 3 Whether the presumption that property is worth the purchase price was rebutted by defendants' evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Where a purchaser proves deceit in the sale of real property, the court will presume the property was worth the purchase price unless the defendant rebuts that presumption; the defendants failed to rebut it here and the agent's admissions on discovery that absence of a rentable suite reduced value by $2,500 justified restoring the trial award of $2,500 in damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of the trial court restored awarding plaintiffs $2,500 and costs