Coote v. Borland

Coote v. Borland

The appeal was dismissed and specific performance ordered because the vendor's signature authenticated the entire receipt including the location words; extrinsic evidence identified the lands actually intended by both parties (north‑west corner lots owned by defendant) and the incorrect block number was a mere descriptive error (falsa demonstratio) which was rejected, leaving a sufficiently certain memorandum for enforcement.

Citation
(1904) 35 SCR 282
Parties
Defendant Appellant: Joseph Coote; Plaintiff Respondent: James Borland
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 November 1904
Procedural Posture
Specific Performance (sale of Land) / Final Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From Supreme Court of British Columbia)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Supreme Court of British Columbia affirmed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Statute of Frauds, Falsa Demonstratio, Contract Interpretation, Parol Evidence, Receipt/memorandum Authenticity
Source Language
English
Property Law Contract Law Equity Sale of Goods/land Specific Performance Statute of Frauds Falsa Demonstratio Contract Interpretation +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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Coote

Defendant Appellant

James Borland

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Specific Performance (sale of Land) / Final Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (on Appeal From Supreme Court of British Columbia)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words below the vendor's signature formed part of the signed receipt
  2. 2 Whether parol evidence was admissible to identify the lands referred to in the receipt
  3. 3 Whether the inaccurate block number was fatal or could be rejected as falsa demonstratio so as to permit specific performance

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed and specific performance ordered because the vendor's signature authenticated the entire receipt including the location words; extrinsic evidence identified the lands actually intended by both parties (north‑west corner lots owned by defendant) and the incorrect block number was a mere descriptive error (falsa demonstratio) which was rejected, leaving a sufficiently certain memorandum for enforcement.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Supreme Court of British Columbia affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Decree for specific performance in respect of the lots actually bargained for (north‑west corner lots 9 and 10 as identified by the court), with costs