Crosstown Motors Ltd. v. Motuz (2005), 377 A.R. 285 (PC)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2005] A.R. TBEd. AP.120
Crosstown Motors (1982) Ltd. (plaintiff) v. Marilyn Motuz and John Motuz (defendants)
(P0490306208; 2005 ABPC 82)
Indexed As: Crosstown Motors (1982) Ltd. v. Motuz
Alberta Provincial Court
Ingram, P.C.J.
March 29, 2005.
Summary:
The defendants entered into a conditional sale contract to purchase a vehicle from the plaintiff. The defendant Motuz signed a cheque for the cash down payment ($2,000). The cheque was returned NSF. The plaintiff and Motuz agreed on monthly payments to pay the down payment. Motuz defaulted on the payments and the vehicle was seized and disposed of. The plaintiff sued Motuz for the balance owing on the down payment.
The Alberta Provincial Court dismissed the action.
Conditional Sales – Topic 1803
Seller’s remedies – Repossession and sale -General – Effect of – General – [See
Conditional Sales – Topic 3355
].
Conditional Sales – Topic 3355
Seller’s remedies – Action for purchase price – General – Bars – The defendants entered into a conditional sale contract to purchase a vehicle from the plaintiff – The defendant Motuz signed a cheque for the cash down payment ($2,000) – The cheque was returned NSF – The plaintiff and Motuz agreed on monthly payments to pay the down payment – Motuz defaulted on the payments and the vehicle was seized and disposed of – The plaintiff sued Motuz for the balance owing on the down payment – The Alberta Provincial Court dismissed the action – Section 53(2) of the Law of Property Act provided that if a secured party elected to enforce its purchase-money interest and seized the goods, no action was maintainable for the purchase price of the goods or any part of it – The court held that s. 53(2) applied and accordingly, the plaintiff’s claim could not be maintained – See paragraphs 11 to 24.
Courts – Topic 17
Stare decisis – Authority of judicial decisions – General principles – Scope of stare decisis – The Alberta Provincial Court discussed the principle of stare decisis and held that “this court is bound to follow the law expressed by the appeal court, but is not necessarily bound to the same result. Only the actual issue addressed by the appeal court is binding, not propositions assumed by inference from the result, no matter how necessary to the result the propositions may logically be” – See paragraphs 25 to 29.
Cases Noticed:
Miller (Ed) Sales and Rentals Ltd. v. Kalan, [1971] 2 W.W.R. 321 (Alta. C.A.), consd. [para. 14].
Modern Motor Service v. Kaucher (1956), 19 W.W.R.(N.S.) 448 (Alta. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21].
Munder v. Baperezneak, [1938] 3 W.W.R. 733 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].
Guaranty Trust Co. of Canada v. Seller’s Oil Field Service Ltd. (1984), 55 A.R. 348 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 26].
Woods Manufacturing Co. v. R., [1951] S.C.R. 504, refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Crazybull (C.D.) (1993), 141 A.R. 69; 46 W.A.C. 69 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Hayden (P.A.) (1997), 200 A.R. 279; 146 W.A.C. 279 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].
R. v. Deur, [1944] S.C.R. 435, refd to. [para. 29].
Statutes Noticed:
Law of Property Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-7, sect. 53(2), sect. 53(4) [para. 12].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Cuming, Ronald C.C., and Wood, Roderick J., Alberta Personal Property Security Act Handbook (4th Ed. 1998), p. 516, fn. 4 [para. 14]; para. 61(2) [para. 14].
Halsbury’s Laws of England (2000) (4th Ed. – Reissue), para. 573 [para. 29].
Counsel:
Art Angielski, for the plaintiff;
John Motuz, for the defendants.
This action was heard on March 4, 2005, by Ingram, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on March 29, 2005.
