Harvey v. Perry

Harvey v. Perry

The Court held there was no concluded contract because the correspondence and conduct demonstrated continued negotiation and lack of unequivocal acceptance; the respondent was still seeking better terms and no sufficient written memorandum under the Statute of Frauds existed, so specific performance was not available.

Citation
[1953] 1 SCR 233
Parties
Defendant Appellant: William Landon Harvey; Plaintiff Respondent: Arthur Cyril Perry
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 March 1953
Procedural Posture
Appeal; Contract Dispute (specific Performance) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; action dismissed; specific performance refused
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Statute of Frauds, Formation of Contract, Sale of Oil Leases, Escrow/assignment Procedure
Source Language
English
Contract Equity Specific Performance Statute of Frauds Formation of Contract Sale of Oil Leases Escrow/assignment Procedure

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

Parties

William Landon Harvey

Defendant Appellant

Arthur Cyril Perry

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal; Contract Dispute (specific Performance) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of Alberta, Appellate Division; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a concluded contract existed between the parties
  2. 2 Whether correspondence, interviews and conduct constituted an unequivocal acceptance
  3. 3 Whether requirements of the Statute of Frauds were satisfied

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held there was no concluded contract because the correspondence and conduct demonstrated continued negotiation and lack of unequivocal acceptance; the respondent was still seeking better terms and no sufficient written memorandum under the Statute of Frauds existed, so specific performance was not available.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; action dismissed; specific performance refused

Orders

  • Action dismissed with costs to appellant
  • Respondent ordered to deliver up to appellant copies of the leases in question forthwith