Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 17 JANUARY 2017

Agricultural Law Netletter - January 7, 2017 Issue 363

Miller Thomson
Miller Thomson
Contributor

Miller Thomson

Miller Thomson LLP ("Miller Thomson") is a national business law firm with approximately 500...

View firm profile
Explore more from Miller Thomson

The Ontario Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal by the purchasers of a hog barn who alleged it was a term of an agreement for the purchase of the barn...

CanadaReal Estate and Construction

HIGHLIGHTS

* The Ontario Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal by the purchasers of a hog barn who alleged it was a term of an agreement for the purchase of the barn that it would have had hogs in it at the time of closing. The Court also rejected arguments that the vendor had breached its duty of good faith by failing to advise the purchaser in advance of closing that there would be no hogs in the barn; that the vendor had negligently misrepresented its arrangement with a hog supplier and that provisions in the sale agreement which provided for an adjustment on closing for the proceeds of a hog contract and management services could be interpreted as a provision that there would be hogs in the barn at the time of closing. (Eureka Farms Inc. v. Luten, CALN/2017-031, [2016] O.J. No. 6630, Ontario Court of Appeal)

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from