Barber and Barber v. Glen and Glen, (1987) 59 Sask.R. 49 (CA)

• Judge: Tallis, Cameron and Gerwing, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: September 15, 1987
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1987), 59 Sask.R. 49 (CA)

Barber v. Glen (1987), 59 Sask.R. 49 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Wayne Barber and Lois Barber (plaintiffs/appellants) v. John A. Glen and Joyce E. Glen (defendants/respondents)

(No. 8406)

Indexed As: Barber and Barber v. Glen and Glen

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Tallis, Cameron and Gerwing, JJ.A.

September 15, 1987.

Summary:

The Barbers entered into a lease option agreement with the Glens. The Barbers purported to exercise the option to purchase by paying the Glens $32,000.00 towards the purchase price of $120,000.00. The Barbers then repudiated the contract and demanded the return of the $32,000.00.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported in 30 Sask.R. 156, allowed the Barbers' action and ordered the Glens to return the $32,000.00, less the Glens' expenses of $14,936.00. The Barbers appealed; the Glens applied to vary the judgment.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and the notice to vary and affirmed the trial judgment.

Evidence - Topic 6302

Parol evidence rule - Integration of legal act - Additional terms - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal affirmed and applied the principle that the parol evidence rule does not operate to exclude evidence of subsequent oral or written agreements which may alter or nullify a written contract - See paragraph 9.

Sale of Land - Topic 3485

Contract - Discharge - Repudiation - Damages - Where repudiation accepted - Tenants occupied a house under a lease option agreement - The tenants could exercise the option to purchase by paying "$40,000.00 toward the purchase price (of $120,000.00)" - The tenants/purchasers paid $32,000.00 instead, pursuant to an oral amendment of the agreement - The purchasers repudiated the agreement; the vendors accepted the repudiation - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal affirmed that although the $32,000.00 payment was not forfeited to the vendors under an express term of the contract, but by implication at common law, the court had the discretion to grant relief from forfeiture under s. 44, rule 5 of the Queen's Bench Act and in equity - The court affirmed that the vendors return the $32,000.00, less the vendors' expenses of $14,936.00 - See paragraphs 14 to 34.

Sale of Land - Topic 7765

Remedies of vendor - Forfeiture of part payments or instalments - Where purchaser abandons contract - [See Sale of Land - Topic 3485 above].

Sale of Land - Topic 8903

Remedies of purchaser - Relief from forfeiture - When available - [See Sale of Land - Topic 3485 above].

Cases Noticed:

Frith v. Alliance Investment Co., 20 D.L.R. 356 (S.C.C), refd to. [para. 10].

Wauchope v. Maida (1972), 22 D.L.R.(3d) 142 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Cronholm v. Coal, [1928] 3 D.L.R. 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

Whitely v. Richards (1920), 48 O.L.R. 537; 57 D.L.R. 728, refd to. [para. 19].

Mayson v. Clouet, [1924] A.C. 980 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 19].

Sanderson v. Morton (1923), 54 O.L.R. 479 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Corporation Episcopale Catholique Romaine de Prince Albert v. Mahon, [1926] 1 W.W.R. 186; 20 Sask. L.R. 318; [1926] 1 D.L.R. 411, refd to. [para. 19].

Thagard v. Edmiston, [1925] 3 W.W.R. 527 (Man.), refd to. [para. 19].

Great West Life Assurance Company v. Prairie Developments Limited, [1928] 3 W.W.R. 601, refd to. [para. 19].

DePalma v. Runnymede Iron & Steel Co., [1950] 1 D.L.R. 557, refd to. [para. 20].

Rudd v. Balaz et al., [1940] 2 D.L.R. 588 (Man. K.B.), refd to. [para. 22].

Drinkle et al. v. Steedman (1913), 5 W.W.R. 706, affd. (1916), 9 W.W.R. 1146 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v. New Garage and Motor Co. Ltd., [1915] A.C. 79, refd to. [para. 26].

Starside Properties Ltd. v. Mustapha, [1974] 2 All E.R. 567, refd to. [para. 27].

Hadley v. Baxendale (1854), 156 E.R. 145, refd to. [para. 33].

Statutes Noticed:

Queen's Bench Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. Q-1, sect. 44, rule 5 [paras. 28, 33].

Counsel:

G.G.W. Semenchuck, Q.C., for the appellants;

G.L. Gerrand, Q.C., for the respondents.

This appeal and application were heard before Tallis, Cameron and Gerwing, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Gerwing, J.A., on September 15, 1987.