The appellant challenged summary judgment holding him personally liable on a countermanded cheque issued in payment of part of an account for professional services.
The court held that the cheque notation identifying a principal and using the word "per" indicated a representative signature rather than a personal one.
It further held that the trade-name liability provision did not apply because the appellant did not sign in the trade name, but as agent for the identified principal.
The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment motion was dismissed, and the cross-appeal on costs was dismissed without costs.
