Doran v. McKinnon

Doran v. McKinnon

A telegram signed by the defendant, when read with prior written correspondence signed by him and properly identified by admissible parol evidence as the terms referred to, constituted a sufficient memorandum within the Statute of Frauds to enforce the contract for purchase of the Alberta bonds; defendant therefore liable for breach (appeal dismissed).

Citation
(1916) 53 SCR 609
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: John J. Doran; Respondents / Plaintiffs: Walter L. McKinnon and Others
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 June 1916
Procedural Posture
Contract (sale of Bonds) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Appellate Division and trial court affirmed
Legal Topics
Memorandum in Writing, Parol Evidence Rule, Identification and Relation of Documents, Election to Affirm (approbation), Sufficiency of Written Memorandum
Source Language
English
Contract Law Statute of Frauds Agency Misrepresentation Remedies (damages) Memorandum in Writing Parol Evidence Rule Identification and Relation of Documents +2 more

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John J. Doran

Appellant / Defendant

Walter L. McKinnon and Others

Respondents / Plaintiffs

Procedural Posture

Contract (sale of Bonds) / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a sufficient written memorandum signed by the party to satisfy the Statute of Frauds
  2. 2 Whether parol evidence is admissible to identify or connect separate writings so they together satisfy the Statute of Frauds
  3. 3 Whether the defendant acted as purchaser or only as agent

Ratio Decidendi

A telegram signed by the defendant, when read with prior written correspondence signed by him and properly identified by admissible parol evidence as the terms referred to, constituted a sufficient memorandum within the Statute of Frauds to enforce the contract for purchase of the Alberta bonds; defendant therefore liable for breach (appeal dismissed).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Appellate Division and trial court affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment for plaintiffs for damages for breach of contract affirmed