Sleen et al. v. Auld

Sleen et al. v. Auld

Appellants failed to prove that they were induced to enter the contract by fraudulent misrepresentation because the evidence showed the purchasers initiated the sale discussions, the purchasers received and relied on company records prior to signing the promissory note, they made payments under the note, and did not allege misrepresentation until years later; therefore the promissory note is enforceable and the cross-appeal allowing enforcement is allowed.

Citation
[1967] SCR 88
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Leonard Sleen; Defendant/appellant: H. Thornton R. Gregg; Defendant/appellant: Thomas John Hopwood; Plaintiff/respondent: Harry L. Auld
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 December 1966
Procedural Posture
Contract / Appeal and Cross Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Promissory Note Enforcement, Inducement and Reliance, Measure of Damages
Source Language
English
Contract Fraud Commercial Law Securities (shares) Fraudulent Misrepresentation Promissory Note Enforcement Inducement and Reliance Measure of 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leonard Sleen

Defendant/appellant

H. Thornton R. Gregg

Defendant/appellant

Thomas John Hopwood

Defendant/appellant

Harry L. Auld

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Contract / Appeal and Cross Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fraudulent misrepresentations by the vendor induced the purchasers to buy the shares
  2. 2 Whether purchasers are liable on the promissory note
  3. 3 Proper measure of damages for fraudulent misrepresentation in share sale

Ratio Decidendi

Appellants failed to prove that they were induced to enter the contract by fraudulent misrepresentation because the evidence showed the purchasers initiated the sale discussions, the purchasers received and relied on company records prior to signing the promissory note, they made payments under the note, and did not allege misrepresentation until years later; therefore the promissory note is enforceable and the cross-appeal allowing enforcement is allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Cross-appeal allowed