Supreme Court of Canada

Hechter et al. v. Thurston, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 254

Date: 1980-10-21

William Samuel Hechter and David William Gordon Reycraft (Plaintiffs) Appellants;

and

Harold Elmer Thurston (Defendant) Respondent.

1980: October 21.

Present: Laskin C.J. and Ritchie, Dickson, Mclntyre and Chouinard JJ.

ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR MANITOBA

Sale of land—Conditions of contract accepted by vendor as terms thereof—Time not of the essence—Vendor in default in carrying out obligations—Damages.

APPEAL by the purchasers from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Manitoba[^1], allowing an appeal from the judgment of Nitikman J. in an action for specific performance or damages for breach of contract for the sale of land. Appeal allowed.

A.H. Adam and M. Newman, for the plaintiffs, appellants.

D.A. Booth, for the defendant, respondent.

The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

THE CHIEF JUSTICE—We are all of the opinion that this appeal should be allowed, the judgment of the Manitoba Court of Appeal set aside and the award of damages by Nitikman J. in favour of the plaintiffs restored. The contract in question here did not make time of the essence, and it is clear that the vendor had accepted the conditions of the contract as terms thereof imposing obligations upon him. This contract does not involve, therefore, any question raised by the cases dealing with what has been called “true conditions precedent”. In the circumstances, the vendor was in default in carrying out his obligations and, indeed, was guilty of a premature repudiation. The appellants are entitled to costs in this Court. We leave the costs at trial undisturbed and award no costs in the Court of Appeal.

[Page 255]

Judgment accordingly.

Solicitors for the plaintiffs, appellants: Norton, Schwartz, McJannet, Weinberg, Winnipeg.

Solicitors for the defendant, respondent: Allen & Booth, Winnipeg.

[^1]: 1979 MBCA 2659, [1979] 3 W.W.R. 172.