Cooper v. Wilkins

Cooper v. Wilkins

On the balance of probabilities the Claimants proved the Property Condition Disclosure indicated a serviced lot but no lateral existed and they incurred $2,280 to install it; the Defendant failed to produce evidence substantiating existence of a lateral or to corroborate a lower installation cost; the Defendant proved portions of his counterclaim for curb and fill damage amounting to $675; accordingly the Claim succeeds in full, the Counterclaim in part, and a net judgment of $1,605 in favour of the Claimants is ordered, with each party bearing their own costs.

Citation
2007 NSSM 43
Parties
Claimants: Wallace Edward Cooper & Cynthia Cooper; Defendant: Clark A. Wilkins
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court / Decision
Outcome
Claim succeeded in full; Counterclaim succeeded in part; Judgment for Claimants in net amount $1,605.00
Legal Topics
Sale of Land, Property Condition Disclosure, Misrepresentation, Damages, Counterclaim, Costs
Source Language
English
Property Law Contract Tort Sale of Land Property Condition Disclosure Misrepresentation Damages Counterclaim +1 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

Wallace Edward Cooper & Cynthia Cooper

Claimants

Clark A. Wilkins

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vendor's Property Condition Disclosure statement that the water supply is 'to lot' created liability for the cost of installing a water lateral when none existed
  2. 2 Whether the defendant produced sufficient evidence to rebut the claim that no water lateral existed or to justify reduction of claimed costs
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's counterclaim for damage to curb, loss of fill and cleanup was established on the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the Claimants proved the Property Condition Disclosure indicated a serviced lot but no lateral existed and they incurred $2,280 to install it; the Defendant failed to produce evidence substantiating existence of a lateral or to corroborate a lower installation cost; the Defendant proved portions of his counterclaim for curb and fill damage amounting to $675; accordingly the Claim succeeds in full, the Counterclaim in part, and a net judgment of $1,605 in favour of the Claimants is ordered, with each party bearing their own costs.

Court Disposition

Claim succeeded in full; Counterclaim succeeded in part; Judgment for Claimants in net amount $1,605.00

Orders

  • Defendant to pay Claimants $2,280.00
  • Claimants to pay Defendant $675.00