Entwistle v. Davis & Davis Personal and Professional Development Seminars Ltd.

Entwistle v. Davis & Davis Personal and Professional Development Seminars Ltd.

The adjudicator found as fact that the defendant represented employment would be available after training, that no such opportunity existed, that the claimants relied on that representation and suffered loss, and that the result is the same under negligent misrepresentation or contract law; accordingly the defendant must refund payments and the counterclaim is dismissed as frivolous.

Citation
2004 NSSM 7
Parties
Claimant: John Entwistle; Claimant: Joanne Entwistle; Defendant: Davis & Davis Personal and Professional Development Seminars Limited
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Action / Decision (adjudication)
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; defendant ordered to pay refund and costs; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligent Misrepresentation, Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Contractual Representation, Remedies, Costs
Source Language
English
Tort Contract Consumer Law Negligent Misrepresentation Misrepresentation Breach of Contract Contractual Representation Remedies +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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Entwistle

Claimant

Joanne Entwistle

Claimant

Davis & Davis Personal and Professional Development Seminars Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Action / Decision (adjudication)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant represented that employment would be provided after completion of the PEP course
  2. 2 Whether that representation gave rise to liability in tort (negligent misrepresentation) or as a contractual term/collateral warranty
  3. 3 Whether the claimants are entitled to repayment of fees and costs

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator found as fact that the defendant represented employment would be available after training, that no such opportunity existed, that the claimants relied on that representation and suffered loss, and that the result is the same under negligent misrepresentation or contract law; accordingly the defendant must refund payments and the counterclaim is dismissed as frivolous.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; defendant ordered to pay refund and costs; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Defendant pay Claimants $7,786.35 (refund of payments)
  • Defendant pay costs $200.25 (filing and service fees)