2 total
Appeal dismissed; oral agreement to return investment funds on demand enforceable as a collateral contract.
The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to return $25,000 to the respondent.
The respondent and his wife had invested $35,000 in the appellant's internet start-up company, signing written agreements.
The trial judge found that the appellant had orally agreed to return the money on demand.
On appeal, the appellant argued that the respondent was not a proper party plaintiff and that the trial judge erred in admitting parol evidence of the oral agreement.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the oral agreement did not contradict the written agreements and fell within the collateral contract exception to the parol evidence rule.
The court also added the respondent's wife as a party plaintiff.
Appeal of summary judgment for vehicle loan deficiency dismissed; financier not liable for dealer's alleged misrepresentations.
The appellant purchased a used vehicle financed by the respondent.
After experiencing issues with the vehicle, the appellant defaulted on payments and returned the vehicle to the dealership.
The respondent sold the vehicle at public auction and obtained summary judgment for the deficiency balance.
On appeal, the appellant argued the dealership made misrepresentations and the respondent failed to provide proper notice of sale under the Personal Property Security Act.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of a close relationship between the dealership and the respondent to attribute misrepresentations, and concluding that any failure to provide notice did not undermine the right to claim a deficiency absent proof of damages.
