The appellant contractor sued the respondent bank for misrepresentation after the bank failed to advance a $150,000 loan to a mall owner to pay for renovations.
The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the bank had informed the contractor that the loan was conditional on a guarantor's signature.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge misapprehended the evidence.
The bank had represented that the loan was a sure thing and that the signature was a mere formality, knowing this was untrue and that the contractor would rely on it.
Judgment was entered for the contractor for the undisputed contract amount plus costs.
