Engineered Homes Ltd. v. Mason et al.

Engineered Homes Ltd. v. Mason et al.

The Court allowed the appeal because the trial judge’s factual findings were justified: there was no evidence of a clear and unequivocal promise by the appellant that would give rise to promissory estoppel, and Mason, as trustee, breached his duty by appropriating the $52,500 instead of forwarding it to IAC; therefore the estoppel defence fails and the appellant is entitled to recovery.

Citation
[1983] 1 SCR 641
Parties
Appellant: Engineered Homes Ltd.; Respondent Trustee: John Mason (Trustee of the Estate of Juniper Lands Limited); Respondent Accountant: Donald J. Henfrey; Respondent Accountant: David M. Korbin; Respondent Accountant: E. Michael McMahon
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 May 1983
Procedural Posture
Contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the British Columbia Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment for appellant restored
Legal Topics
Promissory Estoppel, Conversion, Breach of Trust, Estoppel in Pais, Trustee Duties
Source Language
English
Contract Equity Trusts Property Promissory Estoppel Conversion Breach of Trust Estoppel in Pais +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Engineered Homes Ltd.

Appellant

John Mason (Trustee of the Estate of Juniper Lands Limited)

Respondent Trustee

Donald J. Henfrey

Respondent Accountant

David M. Korbin

Respondent Accountant

E. Michael McMahon

Respondent Accountant

Procedural Posture

Contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the British Columbia Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether promissory estoppel barred the appellant from enforcing contractual rights against the trustee
  2. 2 Whether the trustee breached his duty by applying the purchaser’s down payment to his firm’s fees instead of forwarding it to the mortgagee (IAC)
  3. 3 Whether appellant suffered actionable loss or had any proprietary interest after payment

Ratio Decidendi

The Court allowed the appeal because the trial judge’s factual findings were justified: there was no evidence of a clear and unequivocal promise by the appellant that would give rise to promissory estoppel, and Mason, as trustee, breached his duty by appropriating the $52,500 instead of forwarding it to IAC; therefore the estoppel defence fails and the appellant is entitled to recovery.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for appellant restored

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Judgment in favour of Engineered Homes Ltd. for $52,500 (down payment) with pre-judgment interest as awarded at trial