Shaw v. Masson

Shaw v. Masson

The Supreme Court held that specific performance will not be decreed where the contract was procured by fraud and that a defendant may resist specific performance without offering to restore money when that money was paid on account of an admitted debt; accordingly the appellant’s defence of fraud defeated the plaintiff’s claim for specific performance and the trial judgment dismissing the action was restored.

Citation
[1923] SCR 187
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Hedley Shaw; Respondent/plaintiff: A.L. Masson
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 December 1922
Procedural Posture
Action for Specific Performance (contract Dispute) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of trial court restored; plaintiff’s action for specific performance dismissed.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Rescission, Misrepresentation, Payment of Admitted Debt, Broker Agency, Transfer of Land
Source Language
English
Equity Contract Property Agency Fraud Specific Performance Rescission Misrepresentation +3 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hedley Shaw

Appellant/defendant

A.L. Masson

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Action for Specific Performance (contract Dispute) / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specific performance can be decreed where the contract was procured by fraud
  2. 2 Whether a defendant must offer to return money received to assert rescission or to resist specific performance
  3. 3 Whether monies paid by the payer as payment of an admitted debt can be retained by the creditor notwithstanding conditions attached by the payer

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that specific performance will not be decreed where the contract was procured by fraud and that a defendant may resist specific performance without offering to restore money when that money was paid on account of an admitted debt; accordingly the appellant’s defence of fraud defeated the plaintiff’s claim for specific performance and the trial judgment dismissing the action was restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of trial court restored; plaintiff’s action for specific performance dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Judgment of the trial court dismissing the action restored