Gosse-Millerd Ltd. v. Devine

Gosse-Millerd Ltd. v. Devine

Because the jury returned a general verdict on three distinct causes of action where two causes were admitted to be unsupported and the trial judge's charge may have led the jury to attribute damages to those unsupported causes, the verdict could not be reliably apportioned and a new trial was required; additionally, where deceit is established damages are limited to losses directly and naturally resulting from entering the transaction (including sums paid and reasonable losses incurred), not speculative lost profits, and the respondents could elect to affirm and sue or to repudiate.

Citation
[1928] SCR 101
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Gosse-Millerd Limited; Respondents (defendants): Andrew C. Devine and Others
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 December 1927
Procedural Posture
Appeal; Civil Action Concerning Lease, Contract and Tort (deceit) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia; New Trial Ordered
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Deceit, Repudiation Vs Affirmation, Measure of Damages, Loss of Profits, Jury Directions, New Trial, Costs
Source Language
English
Lease Contract Tort Fraud Damages Civil Procedure Jury Law Misrepresentation +7 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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gosse-Millerd Limited

Appellant (plaintiff)

Andrew C. Devine and Others

Respondents (defendants)

Procedural Posture

Appeal; Civil Action Concerning Lease, Contract and Tort (deceit) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia; New Trial Ordered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a general jury verdict on multiple causes of action that includes causes not proved requires a new trial
  2. 2 Proper measure of damages for fraudulent misrepresentation/deceit
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs induced by misrepresentation must repudiate or may affirm and sue in deceit

Ratio Decidendi

Because the jury returned a general verdict on three distinct causes of action where two causes were admitted to be unsupported and the trial judge's charge may have led the jury to attribute damages to those unsupported causes, the verdict could not be reliably apportioned and a new trial was required; additionally, where deceit is established damages are limited to losses directly and naturally resulting from entering the transaction (including sums paid and reasonable losses incurred), not speculative lost profits, and the respondents could elect to affirm and sue or to repudiate.