Pope v. Potter

Pope v. Potter

Monthly payments of $2,500 were not penalties but valid rent and not out of proportion to the value received (including exclusive use and an option to purchase at $300,000); respondents are not entitled to relief from forfeiture under s.24; no inequality of bargaining power; petition for declaration rescinding agreement granted and costs awarded to petitioner.

Citation
2011 BCSC 697
Parties
Petitioner: David Joseph Pope; Respondent: Peter Carson Potter; Respondent: Gail Alice MacLean
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Petition for Declaration and Ancillary Orders Re Agreement for Sale / In Chambers; Oral Reasons for Judgment
Outcome
Petition granted: declaration that the agreement for sale is determined, rescinded, cancelled and at an end; respondents' claim for repayment of monthly payments dismissed; petitioner awarded costs.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Rescission of Contract, Penalties and Forfeitures, Relief From Forfeiture, Characterization of Payments as Rent, Unenforceable Penalty Clauses, Law and Equity Act S.24
Source Language
English
Contract Equity Property Real Property Remedies Specific Performance Rescission of Contract Penalties and Forfeitures +4 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Joseph Pope

Petitioner

Peter Carson Potter

Respondent

Gail Alice MacLean

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition for Declaration and Ancillary Orders Re Agreement for Sale / In Chambers; Oral Reasons for Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether monthly payments of $2,500 were a penalty or rent
  2. 2 Whether respondents are entitled to repayment or relief from forfeiture under s.24 Law and Equity Act
  3. 3 Whether there was inequality of bargaining power or unconscionability

Ratio Decidendi

Monthly payments of $2,500 were not penalties but valid rent and not out of proportion to the value received (including exclusive use and an option to purchase at $300,000); respondents are not entitled to relief from forfeiture under s.24; no inequality of bargaining power; petition for declaration rescinding agreement granted and costs awarded to petitioner.

Court Disposition

Petition granted: declaration that the agreement for sale is determined, rescinded, cancelled and at an end; respondents' claim for repayment of monthly payments dismissed; petitioner awarded costs.

Orders

  • Declaration that the agreement for sale is determined, rescinded, cancelled and at an end
  • Respondents' claim for repayment of monthly payments dismissed and respondents not entitled to return of those payments