McLay v. Smith

McLay v. Smith

Adjudicator held defendants breached the APS by conveying the washing machine that was not in good working order at closing and awarded proportionate damages reflecting remaining life (25% of new machine value) plus service call and costs; negligent misrepresentation was not proven and the latent floor defect claim...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2022 NSSM 21
Parties
Claimant: Rory Justin McLay; Claimant: Talia Jennifer Beech; Defendant: Tyler Jordan Mitchell Smith; Defendant: Guylaine Perron
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court / Decision
Outcome
Claim partly allowed: defendants liable for breach of contract regarding washing machine; claim regarding floor damage dismissed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Misrepresentation, Latent Defects, Caveat Emptor, Damages
Source Language
english
Contract Tort Real Property Breach of Contract Misrepresentation Latent Defects Caveat Emptor Damages

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rory Justin McLay

Claimant

Talia Jennifer Beech

Claimant

Tyler Jordan Mitchell Smith

Defendant

Guylaine Perron

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the washing machine was conveyed in good working order in breach of the APS
  2. 2 Whether the defendants negligently misrepresented or concealed the condition of the washing machine
  3. 3 Whether the defendants are liable for latent defects in the floor under the washing machine

Ratio Decidendi

Adjudicator held defendants breached the APS by conveying the washing machine that was not in good working order at closing and awarded proportionate damages reflecting remaining life (25% of new machine value) plus service call and costs; negligent misrepresentation was not proven and the latent floor defect claim was dismissed under caveat emptor because defendants had no knowledge and there was no fraud or misrepresentation.

Court Disposition

Claim partly allowed: defendants liable for breach of contract regarding washing machine; claim regarding floor damage dismissed.

Orders

  • Award to claimants for washing machine: $294.58 CAD
  • Award to claimants for service call: $91.94 CAD