Roman v. Bryant

Roman v. Bryant

Adjudicator found the listing statement was inaccurate and negligently made (arithmetic error) and that a duty of care existed, but dismissed the claim because the Claimants did not reasonably rely on the misrepresentation and, in any event, suffered no loss since an independent valuation gave fair market value equal to the purchase price; the related third-party claim also fails.

Citation
2009 NSSM 39
Parties
Claimants: Jason and Vanessa Roman; Defendant / Third Party Claimant: Sandra Bryant and Bryant Realty Atlantic; Defendants (third Party): Allison Savoury and Realty Connect Limited
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Negligent Misrepresentation / Real Estate Dispute / Decision (adjudicator Ruling)
Outcome
Both claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligent Misrepresentation, Duty of Care, Reliance, Damages, Disclosure of Property Measurements
Source Language
English
Tort Real Property Real Estate Law Negligent Misrepresentation Duty of Care Reliance Damages Disclosure of Property Measurements

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jason and Vanessa Roman

Claimants

Sandra Bryant and Bryant Realty Atlantic

Defendant / Third Party Claimant

Allison Savoury and Realty Connect Limited

Defendants (third Party)

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Negligent Misrepresentation / Real Estate Dispute / Decision (adjudicator Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a listing realtor owes a duty of care to a potential purchaser
  2. 2 Whether the MLS listing’s total living area statement was inaccurate and negligently made
  3. 3 Whether the purchasers reasonably relied on the misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

Adjudicator found the listing statement was inaccurate and negligently made (arithmetic error) and that a duty of care existed, but dismissed the claim because the Claimants did not reasonably rely on the misrepresentation and, in any event, suffered no loss since an independent valuation gave fair market value equal to the purchase price; the related third-party claim also fails.

Court Disposition

Both claims dismissed

Orders

  • Claim SCC No. 309777 dismissed
  • Claim SCC No. 311527 dismissed