Karas et al. v. Rowlett

Karas et al. v. Rowlett

Special damages based on loss of profits from the lost renewal term were properly assessable and the jury could reasonably award $18,000; there was no evidential basis to deduct earnings from plaintiff's other stores as mitigation because those earnings did not arise from the consequences of the deceit; general damages of $2,000 were not supported and must be set aside.

Citation
[1944] SCR 1
Parties
Appellant/defendant: James Karas; Appellant/defendant: Mary Karas; Appellant/defendant: John Pearl; Respondent/plaintiff: Charles Rowlett
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 December 1943
Procedural Posture
Tort (deceit) Claiming Damages for Loss of Lease Renewal/business / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of Nova Scotia En Banc Limited to Quantum of Damages
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: special damages affirmed; general damages set aside; otherwise judgment affirmed
Legal Topics
Deceit, Damages Quantum, Loss of Profit, Mitigation of Loss, Lease Renewal, General Damages, Measure of Damages
Source Language
English
Torts Contract Law Remedies Property Law Deceit Damages Quantum Loss of Profit Mitigation of Loss +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Karas

Appellant/defendant

Mary Karas

Appellant/defendant

John Pearl

Appellant/defendant

Charles Rowlett

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Tort (deceit) Claiming Damages for Loss of Lease Renewal/business / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Supreme Court of Nova Scotia En Banc Limited to Quantum of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper measure of damages for deceit inducing loss of lease renewal and business
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff must account for mitigation by earnings of subsequent businesses (White Cross, Rendezvous)
  3. 3 Whether general damages are recoverable for non‑pecuniary upset from fraudulent misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

Special damages based on loss of profits from the lost renewal term were properly assessable and the jury could reasonably award $18,000; there was no evidential basis to deduct earnings from plaintiff's other stores as mitigation because those earnings did not arise from the consequences of the deceit; general damages of $2,000 were not supported and must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: special damages affirmed; general damages set aside; otherwise judgment affirmed

Orders

  • Allow appeal in part and set aside award of $2,000 general damages
  • Affirm judgment for special damages of $18,000 against appellants