Curran v. Grant

Curran v. Grant

Claim allowed in part because evidence established the defendant knew or should have known of significant wetness at the sliding door/rim joist area and failed to disclose it on the PCDS, claimants reasonably relied on the representation and suffered loss; other alleged defects were not proven to have been known by the vendor or were patent/known to purchasers so negligent misrepresentation not established for those items.

Citation
2010 NSSM 29
Parties
Claimant: Andrew Curran; Claimant: Christine Johnston; Defendant: Heather Grant
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 April 2010
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court / Decision
Outcome
Claim partially allowed; judgment for Claimants in part and other claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Property Condition Disclosure Statement, Negligent Misrepresentation, Caveat Emptor, Latent Vs Patent Defects, Damages
Source Language
English
Real Property Contract Tort Property Condition Disclosure Statement Negligent Misrepresentation Caveat Emptor Latent Vs Patent Defects Damages

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Curran

Claimant

Christine Johnston

Claimant

Heather Grant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the vendor misrepresented the condition of the property on the Property Condition Disclosure Statement (PCDS)
  2. 2 Whether the elements of negligent misrepresentation (duty, untrue representation, negligence, reasonable reliance, and loss) are satisfied
  3. 3 Whether defects were latent or patent and thus discoverable by purchasers or inspectors

Ratio Decidendi

Claim allowed in part because evidence established the defendant knew or should have known of significant wetness at the sliding door/rim joist area and failed to disclose it on the PCDS, claimants reasonably relied on the representation and suffered loss; other alleged defects were not proven to have been known by the vendor or were patent/known to purchasers so negligent misrepresentation not established for those items.

Court Disposition

Claim partially allowed; judgment for Claimants in part and other claims dismissed

Orders

  • Defendant pay Claimants debt of $11,300.00
  • Defendant pay filing costs of $179.35