The facts of a case heard by the Supreme Court of Canada are as follows: Mr. and Mrs. H were induced to sign a mortgage in favour of M.C.R. Ltd. by Johnston, a man living with their daughter. Johnston led them to believe that the document was an unimportant amendment to an existing mortgage when, in reality, it was a second substantial mortgage on their home. Neither read the document or questioned it. When the payments were in arrears, the mortgagee took an action for foreclosure (to take their home). Mr. and Mrs. H. pleaded non est factum. Would this defence succeed? Why or why not?
Correct Answer:
Verified
View Answer
Unlock this answer now
Get Access to more Verified Answers free of charge
Q134: "Misrepresentation involves a misleading statement of fact,
Q135: Explain what is meant by the parol
Q136: Sam agreed to buy property from Joe
Q137: What is the term used to describe
Q138: Negotiable instruments can sometimes convey better rights
Q140: Where the misrepresentation is innocent, explain the
Q141: The principle that courts will not permit
Q142: Joe owned an apartment building and entered
Q143: Correction by the court of the wording
Q144: Explain what is meant by "privity of
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents