Wanless v. Graham

Wanless v. Graham

Appeal allowed because the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and applied incorrect law; there was no admissible evidence that the seller or his spouse made representations about leaks or that the seller knew of defects, and the implied warranty for a used car did not extend to guarantee absence of such defects when buyer had opportunity to inspect and declined a mechanical inspection.

Citation
2009 BCSC 579
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Jeffrey Wanless; Respondent (claimant): Lyle Graham
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Provincial Court Judgment / Reasons for Judgment in Chambers on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; action of respondent dismissed
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Implied Warranty of Fitness, Sale of Used Vehicle, Duty to Inspect, Appeal for Misapprehension of Evidence
Source Language
English
Contract Sale of Goods Consumer Protection Civil Procedure Misrepresentation Implied Warranty of Fitness Sale of Used Vehicle Duty to Inspect +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeffrey Wanless

Appellant (defendant)

Lyle Graham

Respondent (claimant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Provincial Court Judgment / Reasons for Judgment in Chambers on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether seller or seller's spouse made actionable misrepresentations about the vehicle's condition
  2. 2 Whether the implied warranty of fitness for purpose was breached in the sale of a used vehicle
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and applied incorrect law

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal allowed because the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and applied incorrect law; there was no admissible evidence that the seller or his spouse made representations about leaks or that the seller knew of defects, and the implied warranty for a used car did not extend to guarantee absence of such defects when buyer had opportunity to inspect and declined a mechanical inspection.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; action of respondent dismissed

Orders

  • Action dismissed
  • Parties may address costs