FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 1,756 times | Saved to 300 briefcases
Re Drummond Wren [1945] OR 778 (HC)

Facts:

WEA purchased land in Toronto to build a house on then raffle it off. The land was restricted by covenant say that it was “not to be sold to Jews or persons of objectionable nature.” The WEA applied to have the covenant declared invalid.
*Say that it was void because it was racially restrictive and against public policy
*Also that it was against the Racial Discrimination Act

Issue(s):

Is the covenant, not selling to Jews, against public policy?

Ratio:

Contractual provisions if injurious to the public can be void on the grounds of public policy

Analysis:

Public policy is a variable thing and must fluctuate with circumstances.
Whatever is injurious to the interests of the public is void, on the ground of public policy (Horner v. Graves (1831)).

Holding:

Covenant is void because it is offensive to the public policy of this jurisdiction.

Comments:

Looks at a lot of soft law.
The natural law theory best describes this case


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.