Moffatt v. Finlay

Moffatt v. Finlay

The PCDS asks about the seller's present knowledge and is not a warranty; on the evidence the sellers honestly believed there was no current problem with water quantity or pressure and their negative answers were not negligent or fraudulent; the agents were not liable given the notice on the form and absence of a duty to the buyers; accordingly the claim fails and is dismissed.

Citation
2007 NSSM 64
Parties
Claimant: Ted Moffatt; Claimant: Sheila Barling; Defendant: James Frederick Finlay; Defendant: Kelly Lee-Ann Finlay; Defendant: Jerry Murphy; Defendant: Annette Murphy; Defendant: Remax Nova
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Civil Claim (misrepresentation in Property Sale) / Final Decision (decision on the Merits)
Outcome
Claim dismissed against all Defendants.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraud, Property Condition Disclosure Statement, Duty of Care, Caveat Emptor, Damages
Source Language
English
Real Property Contract Law Tort Law Agency Law Misrepresentation Negligent Misrepresentation Fraud Property Condition Disclosure Statement +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ted Moffatt

Claimant

Sheila Barling

Claimant

James Frederick Finlay

Defendant

Kelly Lee-Ann Finlay

Defendant

Jerry Murphy

Defendant

Annette Murphy

Defendant

Remax Nova

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Civil Claim (misrepresentation in Property Sale) / Final Decision (decision on the Merits)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sellers (Finlays) intentionally or negligently misrepresented the condition of the property via the PCDS
  2. 2 What damages, if any, flowed from any misrepresentation
  3. 3 Whether the sellers' agents owed a duty of care to the buyers and are liable for statements in the PCDS

Ratio Decidendi

The PCDS asks about the seller's present knowledge and is not a warranty; on the evidence the sellers honestly believed there was no current problem with water quantity or pressure and their negative answers were not negligent or fraudulent; the agents were not liable given the notice on the form and absence of a duty to the buyers; accordingly the claim fails and is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed against all Defendants.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed against all Defendants; no damages awarded.