McIntyre v. Hood

McIntyre v. Hood

Majority held there was no binding contract because the purchaser's written response introduced a condition precedent (payment of one-third 'on completion of title') and proposed conveyance/mortgage arrangements not in the seller's offer, so there was no unconditional acceptance and therefore no completed contract for which specific performance could be decreed.

Citation
(1883) 9 SCR 556
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Alexander McIntyre; Plaintiff/respondent: William Nelson Hood
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 January 1884
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Court of Queen's Bench (manitoba) (equity) to Supreme Court of Canada / On Appeal; Final Judgment by Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decree of Court of Queen's Bench (Manitoba) reversed; bill dismissed.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Offer and Acceptance, Statute of Frauds, Title as Condition Precedent, Leases and Notice
Source Language
English
Property Law Equity Contract Law Specific Performance Offer and Acceptance Statute of Frauds Title as Condition Precedent Leases and Notice

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

Alexander McIntyre

Defendant/appellant

William Nelson Hood

Plaintiff/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Court of Queen's Bench (manitoba) (equity) to Supreme Court of Canada / On Appeal; Final Judgment by Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff's letter constituted an unconditional acceptance creating a binding contract under the Statute of Frauds
  2. 2 Whether the phrase 'on completion of title' and request for papers/abstracts/conveyance and mortgage introduced a condition precedent altering defendant's offer
  3. 3 Whether purchaser was entitled to compensation for existing leases and whether notice affected entitlement

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held there was no binding contract because the purchaser's written response introduced a condition precedent (payment of one-third 'on completion of title') and proposed conveyance/mortgage arrangements not in the seller's offer, so there was no unconditional acceptance and therefore no completed contract for which specific performance could be decreed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decree of Court of Queen's Bench (Manitoba) reversed; bill dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs.
  • Decree ordering specific performance and compensation reversed; bill dismissed with costs to appellant in both courts.