Zimmermann v. Letkeman

Zimmermann v. Letkeman

The appeal was allowed: the respondent could not obtain specific performance because the contract was tainted by an intended unlawful purpose (to deceive the mortgagee), and the doctrine of locus poenitentiae did not permit enforcement where the plaintiff sought to rely on the illegal contract (the deposit had been returned and the seller had renounced the transaction); Elford v. Elford was distinguishable.

Citation
[1978] 1 SCR 1097
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Heinsz D. Zimmermann; Plaintiff Respondent: Ben Letkeman
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 September 1977
Procedural Posture
Contract (specific Performance) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of Court of Appeal set aside; judgment at trial restored.
Legal Topics
Illegality, Specific Performance, Locus Poenitentiae, Fraud, Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio
Source Language
English
Contract Property Equity Illegality Specific Performance Locus Poenitentiae Fraud Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio

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

Parties

Heinsz D. Zimmermann

Defendant Appellant

Ben Letkeman

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contract (specific Performance) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a contract tainted by an intended unlawful purpose (misleading a mortgagee) is enforceable by specific performance
  2. 2 Whether the doctrine of locus poenitentiae allows a party who abandoned an illegal purpose to enforce the contract
  3. 3 Whether Elford v. Elford authority applies to permit enforcement by a party to an illegal transaction

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed: the respondent could not obtain specific performance because the contract was tainted by an intended unlawful purpose (to deceive the mortgagee), and the doctrine of locus poenitentiae did not permit enforcement where the plaintiff sought to rely on the illegal contract (the deposit had been returned and the seller had renounced the transaction); Elford v. Elford was distinguishable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of Court of Appeal set aside; judgment at trial restored.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan set aside