Freeman v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Canada Ltd., (1999) 186 Sask.R. 104 (QB)

• Judge: Barclay, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: November 17, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1999), 186 Sask.R. 104 (QB);1999 SKQB 193

Freeman v. GMAC (1999), 186 Sask.R. 104 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] Sask.R. TBEd. DE.005

Les Freeman (plaintiff) v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation of Canada Limited (defendant)

(1999 Q.B.G. No. 680; 1999 SKQB 193)

Indexed As: Freeman v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. of Canada Ltd.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Barclay, J.

November 17, 1999.

Summary:

Freeman entered into two conditional sales contracts with General Motors Acceptance Corporation of Canada Ltd. (GMAC) with respect to a car and a truck. Freeman defaulted on payments under both contracts. Concurrent with GMAC's efforts to seize the vehicles, it mistakenly sent Freeman a letter which indicated that the balance owed on the truck was $558.17. Freeman forwarded GMAC a cheque for $558.17. GMAC also mistakenly advised Freeman in writing that final payment with respect to the car had been received. Upon discovering its mis­takes, GMAC wrote to Freeman confirming the amounts actually owed (approximately $35,000) and advising that they intended to realize on the security. Freeman brought an action against GMAC alleging, inter alia, that the parties had entered into a settlement agreement with respect to the debts. GMAC applied for summary judgment pursuant to Queen's Bench Rule 485 dismissing Free­man's claim.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench granted summary judgment dismissing Free­man's claim.

Contracts - Topic 1205

Formation of contract - Offer - What constitutes an offer - [See Contracts - Topic 4603 ].

Contracts - Topic 4603

Discharge and termination - Accord and satisfaction - When applicable - Freeman defaulted on payments under two condi­tional sales contracts with GMAC with respect to a car and a truck - Concurrent with its efforts to seize the vehicles, GMAC sent Freeman a letter which mis­takenly indicated that the balance owed on the truck was $558.17 - Freeman for­warded GMAC a cheque for $558.17 - GMAC also mistakenly advised Freeman in writing that final payment with respect to the car had been received - Upon dis­covering its errors, GMAC wrote to Free­man confirming the amounts actually owed (approximately $35,000) - GMAC rejected Freeman's request to settle the debts - Freeman argued that there had been an accord and satisfaction - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argu­ment - A letter sent by Freeman to GMAC requesting 55 cents on the dollar, and stating "what deal can we come up with", did not amount to an offer capable of acceptance so as to create a legally binding contract - See paragraphs 18 to 22.

Contracts - Topic 4605

Discharge and termination - Accord and satisfaction - What constitutes - General - [See Contracts - Topic 4603 ].

Estoppel - Topic 8

General principles - Conditions precedent -Freeman defaulted on payments under two conditional sales contracts with GMAC with respect to a car and a truck - Concur­rent with its efforts to seize the vehicles, GMAC sent Freeman a letter which mis­takenly indicated that the bal­ance owed on the truck was $558.17 - Freeman for­warded GMAC a cheque for $558.17 - GMAC also mistakenly advised Freeman in writing that final payment with respect to the car had been received - Upon dis­covering its errors, GMAC wrote to Free­man confirming the amounts ac­tually owed (approximately $35,000) - Freeman alleged that he relied, to his detriment, on GMAC's representations that his obliga­tions had been discharged (estoppel) - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument where Freeman did not rely on the mis­statements - Further, it was not inequitable for GMAC to resume its strict legal rights, Freeman had suffered no detriment and he had attempted to take advantage of GMAC's mistake - As such, he was at­tempting to use estoppel as a sword rather than a shield - See paragraphs 31 to 37.

Estoppel - Topic 9

General principles - Estoppel as shield, not sword - [See Estoppel - Topic 8 ].

Estoppel - Topic 1104

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Represen­tation - By statement - Representations which do not found estoppel - [See Estoppel - Topic 8 ].

Estoppel - Topic 1389

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Circum­stances where doctrine not applicable - Lack of prejudice to person raising estoppel - [See Estoppel - Topic 8 ].

Mistake - Topic 707

Mistake of fact - Mistake as to nature or existence of rights - Where opposite party knew of mistake - Freeman defaulted on payments under two conditional sales contracts with GMAC with respect to a car and a truck - Concurrent with its efforts to seize the vehicles, GMAC sent Freeman a letter which mistakenly indicated that the balance owed on the truck was $558.17 - Freeman forwarded GMAC a cheque for $558.17 - GMAC also mistakenly advised Freeman in writing that final payment with respect to the car had been received - Upon discovering its errors, GMAC wrote to Freeman confirming the amounts ac­tual­ly owed (approximately $35,000) - Free­man alleged that there had been a settle­ment of the debts - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that even if the parties entered into a set­tlement con­tract, such an agreement would be voidable under the doctrine of unilateral mistake where Free­man must have known that the letters were sent by GMAC in error - See paragraphs 23 to 30.

Practice - Topic 5701

Judgments and orders - Summary judg­ments - General - [See Practice - Topic 5703 ].

Practice - Topic 5703

Judgments and orders - Summary judg­ments - Conditions precedent - A defend­ant applied for summary judgment pursu­ant to Queen's Bench Rule 485 dismissing the plaintiff's claim - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that "[r]ule 485 is a departure from the ordinary test for summary judgment. This test has a lower threshold. Summary judgment is to be granted notwithstanding there may be a triable issue, unless the judge is unable to decide the issues in the absence of cross-examination, or it would be otherwise unjust" - See paragraph 16.

Cases Noticed:

Montreal Trust Co. v. Maley (1992), 105 Sask.R. 195; 32 W.A.C. 195 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Alampi v. Swartz et al. (1964), 43 D.L.R.(2d) 11 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Maracle v. Travellers Indemnity Co. of Canada, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 50; 125 N.R. 294; 47 O.A.C. 333; [1991] I.L.R. 1- 2728; 80 D.L.R.(4th) 652; 3 C.C.L.I.(2d) 186; 50 C.P.C.(2d) 213, refd to. [para. 32].

Regina Sticks Ltd. v. Saskatchewan Gov­ernment Insurance (1993), 113 Sask.R. 40; 52 W.A.C. 40 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Sask.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 485 [para. 15].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston, Law of Contract (11th Ed. 1986), pp. 29-30 [para. 21].

Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Ed. 1956), vol. 15, p. 169, para. 338 [para. 34].

McKeague, Neva R., and Voroney, Willa M.B., The Queen's Bench Rules of Saskatchewan: Annotated (1995), p. 510 [para. 16].

Counsel:

The plaintiff of his own behalf;

Eileen V. Libby, for the defendant.

This application was heard before Barclay, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the follow­ing judg­ment on No­vem­ber 17, 1999.