Layzelle v. Exit Realty

Layzelle v. Exit Realty

Defendants were not liable because they only conveyed information provided by the seller and the PCDS, they disclosed what they knew, they were not contractually required to independently verify the existence or location of a drilled well absent instructions, the agent made reasonable efforts to locate the well and did not breach the standard of care, and the representation about a drilled well originated with the seller rather than the defendants; therefore negligent misrepresentation and negligence were not established and the claim is dismissed.

Citation
2006 NSSM 57
Parties
Claimant: Edwin Layzelle; Claimant: Christine Jacobsen; Defendant: Exit Realty; Defendant: Alastair Read
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court / Final Decision
Outcome
Claim dismissed with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Negligent Misrepresentation, Duty of Disclosure, Dual Agency, Standard of Care for Agents, Property Condition Disclosure
Source Language
English
Contract Law Tort Law Real Property Law Agency Law Negligent Misrepresentation Duty of Disclosure Dual Agency Standard of Care for Agents +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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edwin Layzelle

Claimant

Christine Jacobsen

Claimant

Exit Realty

Defendant

Alastair Read

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants were contractually bound to determine whether a drilled well existed on the property
  2. 2 Whether the defendant real estate agent made a negligent misrepresentation about the water source
  3. 3 Whether the defendant real estate agent was negligent in the performance of his duties (duty to locate the well)

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants were not liable because they only conveyed information provided by the seller and the PCDS, they disclosed what they knew, they were not contractually required to independently verify the existence or location of a drilled well absent instructions, the agent made reasonable efforts to locate the well and did not breach the standard of care, and the representation about a drilled well originated with the seller rather than the defendants; therefore negligent misrepresentation and negligence were not established and the claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The claim against the Defendants is dismissed with no order as to costs.