Jo-Zen Investments Limited v. Kung Tai Enterprises (Canada) Ltd.

Jo-Zen Investments Limited v. Kung Tai Enterprises (Canada) Ltd.

The motion judge correctly found that the parties amended and revived the original agreement by waiving conditions and lowering the purchase price; backdating the amendment to July 14, 2015 could lawfully revive the expired agreement; the appellant had not demonstrated lack of agreement to revival; and the refusal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2017 ONCA 616
Parties
Applicant (respondent in Appeal): Jo-Zen Investments Limited; Applicant (respondent in Appeal): Tilzen Holdings Limited; Respondent (appellant): Kung Tai Enterprises (Canada) Ltd.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Collection / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice (motion Judge)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contract Amendment, Waiver of Conditions, Revival of Agreement, Backdating of Agreement, Adjournment, Costs
Source Language
english
Civil Collection Contract Contract Amendment Waiver of Conditions Revival of Agreement Backdating of Agreement Adjournment +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jo-Zen Investments Limited

Applicant (respondent in Appeal)

Tilzen Holdings Limited

Applicant (respondent in Appeal)

Kung Tai Enterprises (Canada) Ltd.

Respondent (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Collection / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice (motion Judge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parties amended and revived the original agreement by waiving conditions and lowering the purchase price
  2. 2 Whether backdating the amendment to July 14, 2015 could lawfully revive an expired agreement
  3. 3 Whether the appellant agreed to the revival of the original agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge correctly found that the parties amended and revived the original agreement by waiving conditions and lowering the purchase price; backdating the amendment to July 14, 2015 could lawfully revive the expired agreement; the appellant had not demonstrated lack of agreement to revival; and the refusal to adjourn was proper because the evidence sought was not necessary to decide the application, therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs to the respondent fixed at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and costs