Redican v. Nesbitt

Redican v. Nesbitt

The appeal is allowed and a new trial ordered because the trial judge misdirected the jury by requiring proof of deliberate intent to deceive to establish fraudulent misrepresentation; although an executed conveyance together with acceptance of a purchaser's cheque may in many circumstances complete a sale and bar rescission for innocent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation (including reckless indifference to truth) remains a defence and the jury must be properly instructed on that standard.

Citation
[1924] SCR 135
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Annie Redican; Appellant/defendant: Katie Redican; Respondent/plaintiff: Sadie Harrison Nesbitt
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 December 1923
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Hearing on Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario; Judgment on Appeal Ordering New Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; new trial ordered
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Rescission, Completion of Contract, Cheque as Payment, Jury Instructions, Misdirection
Source Language
English
Contract Law Property Law Equity Fraud Misrepresentation Rescission Completion of Contract Cheque as Payment +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Annie Redican

Appellant/defendant

Katie Redican

Appellant/defendant

Sadie Harrison Nesbitt

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Hearing on Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario; Judgment on Appeal Ordering New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delivery of an executed conveyance and receipt of a purchaser's cheque (accepted as cash) completes the contract so as to preclude rescission for innocent misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether stopping payment on a cheque given on completion prevents the contract from being treated as executed
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury by requiring proof of conscious intent to deceive to establish fraudulent misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed and a new trial ordered because the trial judge misdirected the jury by requiring proof of deliberate intent to deceive to establish fraudulent misrepresentation; although an executed conveyance together with acceptance of a purchaser's cheque may in many circumstances complete a sale and bar rescission for innocent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation (including reckless indifference to truth) remains a defence and the jury must be properly instructed on that standard.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; new trial ordered

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs in this Court and in the Appellate Division
  • New trial granted