Rodd v. Cronin

Rodd v. Cronin

The executed formal agreement of June 27th governed and obligated the vendor to convey a good and sufficient title; the vendor failed to prove entitlement to reformation; the Crown's asserted claim under BNA Act s.108 created a real cloud on part of the lands and justified the purchaser's rescission, so specific performance was refused and the appeal dismissed with costs.

Citation
[1936] SCR 142
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff / Vendor: John H. Rodd; Respondent / Defendant / Purchaser: Arthur D. Cronin; Respondent / Defendant: Irene E. Cronin
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 March 1936
Procedural Posture
Contract: Specific Performance of Land Sale / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario (trial Court Judgment Reversed Below)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Rectification (reformation) of Contract, Title Objection, B.n.a. Act S.108 (public Harbours), Rescission for Clouded Title, Reference as to Title
Source Language
English
Contract Property Equity Conveyancing Specific Performance Rectification (reformation) of Contract Title Objection B.n.a. Act S.108 (public Harbours) +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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John H. Rodd

Appellant / Plaintiff / Vendor

Arthur D. Cronin

Respondent / Defendant / Purchaser

Irene E. Cronin

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract: Specific Performance of Land Sale / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario (trial Court Judgment Reversed Below)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parties were bound by the executed formal agreement requiring a good and sufficient title
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff established grounds for rectification of the formal written agreement
  3. 3 Whether the purchaser was justified in terminating the agreement because of the Crown's claim under s.108 BNA Act

Ratio Decidendi

The executed formal agreement of June 27th governed and obligated the vendor to convey a good and sufficient title; the vendor failed to prove entitlement to reformation; the Crown's asserted claim under BNA Act s.108 created a real cloud on part of the lands and justified the purchaser's rescission, so specific performance was refused and the appeal dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • No decree for specific performance; no rectification of the formal agreement; respondents entitled to judgment.