Wile v. Cook

Wile v. Cook

The purchaser's statutory declaration imposed conditions and terms beyond those permitted by clause 5 and amounted to a refusal to complete the contract; the vendor validly accepted that repudiation and treated the agreement as void. Clause 5 grants time to investigate insurance but not a right to wait for insurer payment, so specific performance is not available to the purchaser.

Citation
[1986] 2 SCR 137
Parties
Appellant / Purchaser: Keith Paul Wile; Respondent / Vendor: Retta Cook
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 September 1986
Procedural Posture
Appeal: Specific Performance Claim in Contract for Sale of Land / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; Court of Appeal decision upheld
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Insurance Proceeds, Risk Allocation, Repudiation, Time Is of the Essence, Statutory Declaration, Trust Duty of Vendor
Source Language
English
Contract Property Law Real Property Equitable Remedies Specific Performance Insurance Proceeds Risk Allocation Repudiation +3 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keith Paul Wile

Appellant / Purchaser

Retta Cook

Respondent / Vendor

Procedural Posture

Appeal: Specific Performance Claim in Contract for Sale of Land / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 5 entitled purchaser to wait to see if insurer would pay before completing purchase
  2. 2 Whether the purchaser's statutory declaration amounted to an effective election under the agreement or to a repudiation
  3. 3 Whether specific performance should be granted despite the purchaser's failure to tender on closing day

Ratio Decidendi

The purchaser's statutory declaration imposed conditions and terms beyond those permitted by clause 5 and amounted to a refusal to complete the contract; the vendor validly accepted that repudiation and treated the agreement as void. Clause 5 grants time to investigate insurance but not a right to wait for insurer payment, so specific performance is not available to the purchaser.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; Court of Appeal decision upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Order for specific performance granted at trial set aside