Barry v. Stoney Point Canning Co.

Barry v. Stoney Point Canning Co.

Majority held the contracts were voidable and the appeal allowed: the promise of a substantial secret commission by the vendor's broker to the purchaser's agent created an adverse interest and was a fraud rendering the contracts unenforceable, and on the facts there was no antecedent or ratified authority or holding out sufficient to bind Barry.

Citation
(1917) 55 SCR 51
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Richard C. Barry, doing business as John Barry & Sons; Respondent (plaintiffs): The Stoney Point Canning Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 May 1917
Procedural Posture
Sale of Goods / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored
Legal Topics
Agent's Authority, Ratification, Holding Out, Secret Commission, Fiduciary Duty, Rescission, Estoppel, Sale of Goods
Source Language
English
Sale Agency Contract Equity Agent's Authority Ratification Holding Out Secret Commission +4 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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard C. Barry, doing business as John Barry & Sons

Appellant (defendant)

The Stoney Point Canning Company

Respondent (plaintiffs)

Procedural Posture

Sale of Goods / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Durocher had authority to bind Barry to the purchase contracts
  2. 2 Whether the vendor's broker's agreement to pay a secret commission to the purchaser's agent voided the contracts and entitled the purchaser to rescind

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the contracts were voidable and the appeal allowed: the promise of a substantial secret commission by the vendor's broker to the purchaser's agent created an adverse interest and was a fraud rendering the contracts unenforceable, and on the facts there was no antecedent or ratified authority or holding out sufficient to bind Barry.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial judge restored

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of the trial judge restored