De Vall v. Gorman, Clancey & Grindley Ltd.

De Vall v. Gorman, Clancey & Grindley Ltd.

The trial judge's finding that the agent's misrepresentations were made 'with reckless carelessness as to their truth' satisfied the Derry v. Peek standard for actionable fraud, entitling the purchaser to damages for deceit; additionally, because the vendor disclaimed any claim to the $750 excess, that sum was held to belong to the purchaser (resulting trust) and was not the respondent's property.

Citation
(1919) 58 SCR 259
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Claude L. De Vall; Respondent/defendant: Gorman, Clancey & Grindley Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 March 1919
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (contract/tort: Deceit and Interpleader) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs (majority)
Legal Topics
Deceit/misrepresentation, Agent's Liability, Resulting Trust, Interpleader, Damages, Costs
Source Language
English
Contract Tort Agency Trusts Equity Deceit/misrepresentation Agent's Liability Resulting Trust +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claude L. De Vall

Appellant/plaintiff

Gorman, Clancey & Grindley Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (contract/tort: Deceit and Interpleader) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether agent's misrepresentations amounted to fraud actionable as deceit under Derry v. Peek
  2. 2 Whether $750 paid into bank belonged to purchaser or to agent (interpleader)
  3. 3 Extent of recoverable damages and costs

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's finding that the agent's misrepresentations were made 'with reckless carelessness as to their truth' satisfied the Derry v. Peek standard for actionable fraud, entitling the purchaser to damages for deceit; additionally, because the vendor disclaimed any claim to the $750 excess, that sum was held to belong to the purchaser (resulting trust) and was not the respondent's property.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs (majority)

Orders

  • Judgment of Appellate Division reversed
  • Action for deceit against respondent maintained (with modifications to damages as indicated by majority opinion)