Murray v. Jenkins

Murray v. Jenkins

Because the agent acted under a bona fide but fundamental mistake as to the subject matter and had no authority to sell the additional sixteen lots, there was no actual consent by the principal to the sale of all 26 lots; therefore no binding contract was formed and the trial judge's judgment in favour of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1898) 28 SCR 565
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Elizabeth Murray; Respondent (plaintiff): Thomas K. Jenkins
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 June 1898
Procedural Posture
Appeal Contract for Sale of Land / Final Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (full Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the trial judge restored.
Legal Topics
Mistake as to Subject Matter, Agent Exceeding Authority, Specific Performance, Statute of Frauds, Estoppel, Meeting of Minds (ad Idem)
Source Language
english
Contract Property Agency Equity Mistake as to Subject Matter Agent Exceeding Authority Specific Performance Statute of Frauds +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elizabeth Murray

Appellant (defendant)

Thomas K. Jenkins

Respondent (plaintiff)

Procedural Posture

Appeal Contract for Sale of Land / Final Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (full Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principal was bound by an agent's acceptance of an offer
  2. 2 Whether the agent had authority to sell all 26 lots or only the ten swamp lots
  3. 3 Whether a unilateral mistake as to the subject matter vitiates consent and renders a contract voidable

Ratio Decidendi

Because the agent acted under a bona fide but fundamental mistake as to the subject matter and had no authority to sell the additional sixteen lots, there was no actual consent by the principal to the sale of all 26 lots; therefore no binding contract was formed and the trial judge's judgment in favour of the defendant must be restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the trial judge restored.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of Mr. Justice Henry restored (action dismissed as to defendant)