Frank T. Ross & Sons (1962) Ltd. v. Con-O-Lab Ltd., (1971) 3 N.B.R.(2d) 647 (CA)
|Judge:||Limerick, Hughes and Bugold, JJ.A.|
|Court:||Court of Appeal of New Brunswick|
|Case Date:||December 15, 1970|
|Citations:||(1971), 3 N.B.R.(2d) 647 (CA)|
Ross & Sons v. Con-O-Lab Ltd. (1971), 3 N.B.R.(2d) 647 (CA);
3 R.N.-B.(2e) 647
MLB headnote and full text
Sommaire et texte intégral
Frank T. Ross & Sons (1962) Limited v. Con-O-Lab Limited
Indexed As: Frank T. Ross & Sons (1962) Ltd. v. Con-O-Lab Ltd.
Répertorié: Frank T. Ross & Sons (1962) Ltd. v. Con-O-Lab Ltd.
New Brunswick Court of Appeal
Limerick, Hughes and Bugold, JJ.A.
July 8, 1971.
The New Brunswick Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial Court's decision which set aside a contract for the sale of goods because of the seller's innocent misrepresentation. The seller represented to the buyer that used equipment used for the production of paint was suitable for the manufacture by the buyer of chemical cleaning products.
The New Brunswick Court of Appeal held that the equipment was delivered in an unworkable condition requiring substantial repairs and was generally unsuitable for manufacturing sanitation products.
Sale of Goods - Topic 4054
Conditions and warranties - Warranties - Express warranty of fitness - Contract - Rescission - Innocent misrepresentation - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal set aside contract for the sale of production equipment where the equipment was delivered in an unworkable condition.
Long v. Smith (1911), 23 O.L.R. 121, folld.
Dobell v. Stevens (1825), 3 B. & C. 623, folld.
Wurz v. Devlin (1920), 52 D.L.R. 414 (Sask. C.A.), folld.
Heilbut, Symons & Co. v. Buckleton,  A.C. 30, folld.
Harrison v. Knowles & Foster,  1 K.B. 608, folld.
Newbigging v. Adam (1886), 34 Ch.D. 582, folld.
Horace B. Trites, for the plaintiff, appellant;
George B. Cooper, for the defendant, respondent.
APPEAL FROM AN UNREPORTED decision of Cormier, C.J.Q.B.D., dated December 15, 1970, which allowed a defendant's counterclaim for rescission of a contract for the sale of industrial equipment.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by Bugold, J.A.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP