What area of contract law did you choose?Corporate and commercial - Illegal contractsWhich court is the case in?Alberta Queen's BenchIs it a trial decision or appeal?It is a trial decision.What are the facts about the case? (Provide an accurate summary)The plaintiff, Mr. McCardell purchased a used Mercedes Benz from an individual who used his corporation as a front. When the plaintiff was negotiating the purchase of the car, he thought that the defendant, Aldo Tisi owned the vehicle. Aldo Tisi is the director and sole shareholder of the corporate defendant, Tisi Holdings Co. Inc. The plaintiff drove the car for about 2 months and then he found out that the car was not in mint condition and that the mileage was incorrect. He stopped driving the car when he found out and sued for rescission. He also found out that the defendant was not a licensed automotive dealer and that this was not the only car ...view middle of the document...
The reason is because the defendant was found to be running a retail automotive business that did not have a license. Since the contract was illegal rescission was allowed to be granted. The corporate veil had to be lifted even though there is acknowledgment that the corporation is a separate and legal entity because it would be unfair to the plaintiff to award judgement only against the corporate defendant alone.What relief did the plaintiff or appellant want from the court?He wanted the whole transaction set aside. Meaning he wanted a judgement which would allow for him to return the Mercedes Benz to the defendant and recover the money he paid for the car. Basically the plaintiff is looking for rescission and restitution (and not damages)What relief did the defendant or respondent want from the court?None, just to find that the contract was legal and that rescission could not be given to the plaintiff.What relief did the parties get from the judge?The judge was in favour of the plaintiff on all counts. The judge declared that the contract between the parties is rescinded. The defendant shall return the plaintiff's money and the plaintiff shall return the Mercedes to the defendants. Also an extra $350 was awarded for work done on the car during the brief ownership by the plaintiff.Does the case make new law or did the judge apply existing law to the facts in the case?The judge applied existing laws. He used the Licensing of Trades and Business Act as a reference for the case.If the case makes new law, explain what that is.The case did not make a new law.What did the judge decide on costs?The judge decided that the contract was illegal therefore it was rescinded. The plaintiff was awarded the $17,900 for the purchase of the car and also an additional $350 for work that was done during the brief ownership period. The car had to be returned to the defendant. Even though Mr. Tisi used his corporation as a front, the corporate veil had to be lifted because the corporation was found to be mere agent of a controlling corporator.
