Marvco Colour Research Ltd. v. Harris

Marvco Colour Research Ltd. v. Harris

Because the respondents were found to have been careless in signing a document they knew had legal effect but did not read, they are precluded from pleading non est factum against an innocent holder for value; the mortgage/charge is binding on them and Prudential Trust v. Cugnet is displaced to the extent inconsistent with this principle.

Citation
[1982] 2 SCR 774
Parties
Appellant Plaintiff: Marvco Color Research Limited; Respondent Defendant: Dennis Albert Harris; Respondent Defendant: Thora Harris
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 December 1982
Procedural Posture
Contract Foreclosure (mortgage/charge) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Ontario Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; respondents' plea of non est factum dismissed; mortgage/charge held binding on respondents.
Legal Topics
Non Est Factum, Foreclosure, Mortgage/charge, Estoppel, Carelessness as Bar to Non Est Factum
Source Language
English
Contract Property Commercial Law Equity Non Est Factum Foreclosure Mortgage/charge Estoppel +1 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marvco Color Research Limited

Appellant Plaintiff

Dennis Albert Harris

Respondent Defendant

Thora Harris

Respondent Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract Foreclosure (mortgage/charge) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Ontario Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non est factum is available where the signer knowingly signs a document but carelessly fails to read it and a third party fraudulently misrepresents the document
  2. 2 Whether a party who fails to exercise reasonable care in signing a document is precluded from relying on non est factum against an innocent person who relied in good faith and for value
  3. 3 Whether Prudential Trust v. Cugnet remains authoritative given Saunders v. Anglia

Ratio Decidendi

Because the respondents were found to have been careless in signing a document they knew had legal effect but did not read, they are precluded from pleading non est factum against an innocent holder for value; the mortgage/charge is binding on them and Prudential Trust v. Cugnet is displaced to the extent inconsistent with this principle.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; respondents' plea of non est factum dismissed; mortgage/charge held binding on respondents.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Mortgage/charge declared binding and enforceable against respondents