Mason v. Scott

Mason v. Scott

The Court allowed the appeal because the evidence did not justify a finding that the parties had substituted an oral agreement for the original written sealed agreement, so the plaintiff was entitled to enforce the written contract.

Citation
[1935] SCR 656
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Mason; Defendant/respondent: Scott; Defendant/respondent: Anderson
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 April 1935
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of Nova Scotia in Banco
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs.
Legal Topics
Variation of Contract, Oral Agreement Substituted for Written Contract, Evidence on Contractual Variation
Source Language
English
Contract Variation of Contract Oral Agreement Substituted for Written Contract Evidence on Contractual Variation

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mason

Plaintiff/appellant

Scott

Defendant/respondent

Anderson

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada / Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of Nova Scotia in Banco

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parties substituted an oral agreement for an earlier written agreement under seal
  2. 2 Whether the evidence supported a finding that the oral agreement displaced the written agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The Court allowed the appeal because the evidence did not justify a finding that the parties had substituted an oral agreement for the original written sealed agreement, so the plaintiff was entitled to enforce the written contract.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs throughout.