Marshall and Van Allen v. Crown Assets Disposal Corp.

Marshall and Van Allen v. Crown Assets Disposal Corp.

The contractual reservation allowing withdrawal of property not 'delivered' was unambiguous; 'delivered' required actual physical transfer out of the custodian's possession, which had not occurred, so the corporation was entitled to withdraw the machines and the plaintiffs' action for breach failed; there was no estoppel because the employee lacked authority to waive the condition.

Citation
[1957] SCR 656
Parties
Appellants (plaintiffs): Maynard Boyce Marshall and Harry Alvin Van Allen; Respondent (defendant): Crown Assets Disposal Corporation
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 September 1957
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Sale of Goods Contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment Delivered 1957 09 30
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Delivery, Contractual Conditions, Withdrawal Clause, Estoppel, Contra Proferentem, Authority of Employee
Source Language
English
Contract Law Sale of Goods Property Law Agency and Estoppel Delivery Contractual Conditions Withdrawal Clause Estoppel +2 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maynard Boyce Marshall and Harry Alvin Van Allen

Appellants (plaintiffs)

Crown Assets Disposal Corporation

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Sale of Goods Contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario; Judgment Delivered 1957 09 30

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant could withdraw goods under a contractual clause prior to delivery
  2. 2 What constitutes 'delivery' under the contract
  3. 3 Whether contra proferentem applies to the withdrawal clause

Ratio Decidendi

The contractual reservation allowing withdrawal of property not 'delivered' was unambiguous; 'delivered' required actual physical transfer out of the custodian's possession, which had not occurred, so the corporation was entitled to withdraw the machines and the plaintiffs' action for breach failed; there was no estoppel because the employee lacked authority to waive the condition.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.