Snell v. Brickles

Snell v. Brickles

Majority held the $500 labelled a "deposit" was in substance part of the purchase money; the contractual power to retain monies on purchaser default amounted to a penalty for which equity can grant relief under Kilmer v. British Columbia Orchard Lands, and therefore the purchaser was entitled to specific performance with costs.

Citation
(1914) 49 SCR 360
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: William H. Snell; Respondent / Defendant: Charlotte Brickles, Executor of the Estate of Isaac Brickles, Deceased
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 February 1914
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario / Hearing Before the Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; decree for specific performance granted to plaintiff
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Forfeiture, Deposit, Time of Essence, Penalty, Relief Against Forfeiture
Source Language
English
Sale of Land Property Equity Contract Law Specific Performance Forfeiture Deposit Time of Essence +2 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William H. Snell

Appellant / Plaintiff

Charlotte Brickles, Executor of the Estate of Isaac Brickles, Deceased

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario / Hearing Before the Supreme Court of Canada on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an initial payment described as a "deposit" is nevertheless part of the purchase money and subject to relief against forfeiture under Kilmer v. British Columbia Orchard Lands
  2. 2 Whether a contractual clause making time of the essence and permitting retention of monies paid on account on purchaser default operates as an unenforceable penalty
  3. 3 Whether the court should grant specific performance despite purchaser's brief technical default caused by solicitor's delay

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the $500 labelled a "deposit" was in substance part of the purchase money; the contractual power to retain monies on purchaser default amounted to a penalty for which equity can grant relief under Kilmer v. British Columbia Orchard Lands, and therefore the purchaser was entitled to specific performance with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; decree for specific performance granted to plaintiff

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Decree for specific performance granted in favour of William H. Snell