Misrepresentation (Contract)
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
1172264 Ontario Inc. v. Carrier Truck Centre Inc., 2003 CanLII 10073 (ON SCSM)[1]
The Court is satisfied that were it not for Carrier's innocent misdescription of the vehicle's equipment in its advertising Marshall would have had no interest and would not have purchased the vehicle. In the view of this Court the misrepresentation induced Marshall to enter into the contract. The vehicle has not been used by Marshall and were it not for the prohibition in Section 96 (3) of the Courts of Justice Act against the Small Claims Court employing equitable remedies this Court would order rescission.[2] It is also possible that Marshall has a remedy pursuant to the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act.[3]
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1172264 Ontario Inc. v. Carrier Truck Centre Inc., 2003 CanLII 10073 (ON SCSM), <https://canlii.ca/t/6m44>, retrieved on 2022-09-12
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c43>, retrieved on 2022-09-12
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Sale of Goods Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.1, <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90s01>, retrieved on 2022-09-12
