Ad hoc fiduciary Hodgkinson ("H") v Simms ("S") Case: S was an ad hoc fiduciary bc S
satisfied all 3 requirements to:
1. S has scope to exercise some discretion or power
2. S can unilaterally exercise that power or discretion so as to affect the
beneficiary's legal or practical interests
3. Beneficiary is vulnerable to or at the mercy of S
Duty of Candour Raso v Dionigi Case: forgot to disclose the buyer was the agents sister in-law
(conflict of and that she was willing to pay more
interest)
Constructive trust Soulos v Korkontzillas Case
°S interested in buying a building w/ agent
°agent discouraged S to buy it than bought the property using his wides name
°S found out what happened
°COURT: told the agent that since S still wanted the property they had to give it to
S since they breached FD
Deposits (PPPP) Tang v Zhang Case
°whether B's deposit is forfeited to S is a matter of contractual intention
°"deposit has normal meaning unless evidence to the contrary"
°"deposit motivates to complete transaction"
°substance will govern not the deposit label --> is it a deposit or a PPPP
Fixture v Chattel Stack v Eaton Case
° Factors: 1. fixtures or chattel
2. when item was attached what was the purpose
(a) Make real property function better fixture
(b) Make chattel function better chattel
RBC v Trustee of Neilson Case
°mobile home case
°piece of land with mobile home that got a mortgage on the property -->
then moved the mobile home to another piece of land then got another
mortgage
°who's entitled to the collateral
°mobile home = occasional or permanent
°HELD: mobile home = permanent therefore first mortgage got the collateral
RBC v Maple Ridge Farmers Market Ltd Case
° 6 Rules:
°Fixture v Chattel:
1. Any item which is unattached to the property, except by its own weight, and
can be removed without damage or alterations to the fixtures or land that
will need repair, is a chattel.
2. Any item which is plugged in and can be removed without any damage or
alteration is a chattel.
3. Any item which is attached even minimally (i.e. it cannot simply be
unplugged) is a fixture.
4. If a piece of equipment is attached to a structure, a part of which could be
removed but which would be useless without the attached part, then the
, entire piece of equipment is a fixture. In other words, the item will be a
fixture if it loses its essential character because it is of no use unless attached
to a permanent and substantial improvement to the premises of which it
formed part. The converse is also true. If an item can be detached without
damage or alteration, and if the item retains its essential character without
the attached part, then it will be a chattel.
5. Where an item is determined to be a fixture, it may nevertheless be removed
if it can be shown that it is a tenant's fixture. A tenant's fixture may be
removed from the premises during the currency of the tenancy provided that
the tenant leaves the premises in exactly the same condition as he or she
received them.
6. In very exceptional circumstances not covered by these rules the court
should have resort to the purpose test. For example, a mobile home may be
resting on the land by its own weight but it may be clearly established that it
was intended to be a fixture. These circumstances should only arise rarely
and in relation to very large or expensive items.
Description of Turney v Zhilka Case
the Land Decision: No enforceable contract: Parties never reached any agreement on the
quantity for description of the land to be retained or the land to be conveyed. The
court will not decide this essential element
° court will not write the contract for you
Dynamic Transport Ltd v OK Detailing Ltd Case
Decision: Enforceable contract: Surrounding facts helped the court determine the
party’s intentions. "The only reasonable construction is that the 4-acre parcel was
intended to be sold w/ a slight adjustment to the west to encompass the warehouse
Wilson Lumber Co v Simpson Case
Decision: Enforceable contract: No abatement in price "on 3 sides its limits were
apparent to even a casual observer." "more or less" would cover the variance in
depth.
Appeal: agreed w/ trial judge. Purchase to bulk price not price per foot. There
were "certain specified and visible boundaries"
°"What you see is what you get" principal
Murphy v Horn Case
Decision: Buyer entitled to property w/ 16.5% abatement of price. "where sale of
land the quantity is stated (for instance, as 10 acres), and the price is stated in a
lump sum (as for instance $16000), the presumption is that the price was fixed w/
relevance to the quantity court distinguish limits bc the case it did not state
quantity per land and therefore, price was not arrived as price per foot.
Pompeani v Bonik Inc Case
Decision: the court looked at the draft POS to determine the dimensions of the
townhouse lots. S anticipatorily breached the APS
LesMesurier v Andrus Case
Decision: Objective Test: deficiency was very minor. Materiality cannot be
satisfied all 3 requirements to:
1. S has scope to exercise some discretion or power
2. S can unilaterally exercise that power or discretion so as to affect the
beneficiary's legal or practical interests
3. Beneficiary is vulnerable to or at the mercy of S
Duty of Candour Raso v Dionigi Case: forgot to disclose the buyer was the agents sister in-law
(conflict of and that she was willing to pay more
interest)
Constructive trust Soulos v Korkontzillas Case
°S interested in buying a building w/ agent
°agent discouraged S to buy it than bought the property using his wides name
°S found out what happened
°COURT: told the agent that since S still wanted the property they had to give it to
S since they breached FD
Deposits (PPPP) Tang v Zhang Case
°whether B's deposit is forfeited to S is a matter of contractual intention
°"deposit has normal meaning unless evidence to the contrary"
°"deposit motivates to complete transaction"
°substance will govern not the deposit label --> is it a deposit or a PPPP
Fixture v Chattel Stack v Eaton Case
° Factors: 1. fixtures or chattel
2. when item was attached what was the purpose
(a) Make real property function better fixture
(b) Make chattel function better chattel
RBC v Trustee of Neilson Case
°mobile home case
°piece of land with mobile home that got a mortgage on the property -->
then moved the mobile home to another piece of land then got another
mortgage
°who's entitled to the collateral
°mobile home = occasional or permanent
°HELD: mobile home = permanent therefore first mortgage got the collateral
RBC v Maple Ridge Farmers Market Ltd Case
° 6 Rules:
°Fixture v Chattel:
1. Any item which is unattached to the property, except by its own weight, and
can be removed without damage or alterations to the fixtures or land that
will need repair, is a chattel.
2. Any item which is plugged in and can be removed without any damage or
alteration is a chattel.
3. Any item which is attached even minimally (i.e. it cannot simply be
unplugged) is a fixture.
4. If a piece of equipment is attached to a structure, a part of which could be
removed but which would be useless without the attached part, then the
, entire piece of equipment is a fixture. In other words, the item will be a
fixture if it loses its essential character because it is of no use unless attached
to a permanent and substantial improvement to the premises of which it
formed part. The converse is also true. If an item can be detached without
damage or alteration, and if the item retains its essential character without
the attached part, then it will be a chattel.
5. Where an item is determined to be a fixture, it may nevertheless be removed
if it can be shown that it is a tenant's fixture. A tenant's fixture may be
removed from the premises during the currency of the tenancy provided that
the tenant leaves the premises in exactly the same condition as he or she
received them.
6. In very exceptional circumstances not covered by these rules the court
should have resort to the purpose test. For example, a mobile home may be
resting on the land by its own weight but it may be clearly established that it
was intended to be a fixture. These circumstances should only arise rarely
and in relation to very large or expensive items.
Description of Turney v Zhilka Case
the Land Decision: No enforceable contract: Parties never reached any agreement on the
quantity for description of the land to be retained or the land to be conveyed. The
court will not decide this essential element
° court will not write the contract for you
Dynamic Transport Ltd v OK Detailing Ltd Case
Decision: Enforceable contract: Surrounding facts helped the court determine the
party’s intentions. "The only reasonable construction is that the 4-acre parcel was
intended to be sold w/ a slight adjustment to the west to encompass the warehouse
Wilson Lumber Co v Simpson Case
Decision: Enforceable contract: No abatement in price "on 3 sides its limits were
apparent to even a casual observer." "more or less" would cover the variance in
depth.
Appeal: agreed w/ trial judge. Purchase to bulk price not price per foot. There
were "certain specified and visible boundaries"
°"What you see is what you get" principal
Murphy v Horn Case
Decision: Buyer entitled to property w/ 16.5% abatement of price. "where sale of
land the quantity is stated (for instance, as 10 acres), and the price is stated in a
lump sum (as for instance $16000), the presumption is that the price was fixed w/
relevance to the quantity court distinguish limits bc the case it did not state
quantity per land and therefore, price was not arrived as price per foot.
Pompeani v Bonik Inc Case
Decision: the court looked at the draft POS to determine the dimensions of the
townhouse lots. S anticipatorily breached the APS
LesMesurier v Andrus Case
Decision: Objective Test: deficiency was very minor. Materiality cannot be
