Barrick v. Clark

Barrick v. Clark

In negotiations conducted by correspondence an offer without a specified time for acceptance must be accepted within a reasonable time determined by the nature of the subject matter and surrounding circumstances; applying that test to the November 15 offer, the December 10 purported acceptance was not within a reasonable time and the offer had lapsed, so no enforceable contract for sale existed and specific performance was not owed.

Citation
[1951] SCR 177
Parties
Appellants (vendors/executors): Ralph Newcombe Barrick and Theresa May Florella Barrick, Executors of the Estate of Eli James Barrick, Deceased; Appellant (purchaser): William Hohmann; Respondent (plaintiff/purchaser): Frank J. Clark
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 October 1950
Procedural Posture
Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal of Saskatchewan / On Appeal (judgment Reviewed From Trial and Court of Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment at trial restored; action for specific performance dismissed against the appellants
Legal Topics
Offer and Acceptance, Reasonable Time for Acceptance, Contract by Correspondence, Specific Performance, Sale of Land
Source Language
English
Contract Property Equity Offer and Acceptance Reasonable Time for Acceptance Contract by Correspondence Specific Performance Sale of Land

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

Parties

Ralph Newcombe Barrick and Theresa May Florella Barrick, Executors of the Estate of Eli James Barrick, Deceased

Appellants (vendors/executors)

William Hohmann

Appellant (purchaser)

Frank J. Clark

Respondent (plaintiff/purchaser)

Procedural Posture

Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal of Saskatchewan / On Appeal (judgment Reviewed From Trial and Court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acceptance made on December 10 was within a reasonable time
  2. 2 Whether an offer made by correspondence and unlimited as to time remains open until actually received by the offeree
  3. 3 Whether specific performance should be granted against the appellants given the timing of acceptance

Ratio Decidendi

In negotiations conducted by correspondence an offer without a specified time for acceptance must be accepted within a reasonable time determined by the nature of the subject matter and surrounding circumstances; applying that test to the November 15 offer, the December 10 purported acceptance was not within a reasonable time and the offer had lapsed, so no enforceable contract for sale existed and specific performance was not owed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment at trial restored; action for specific performance dismissed against the appellants

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment of trial court restored (original dismissal of respondent's action reinstated)