I previously wrote about a small claims case in Saskatchewan where a man had bid $18,000 at auction to purchase a 4640 John Deere (with loader) but had mistakenly been allowed to pay only $1,800. The cashier had entered the bid amount incorrectly, missing the last zero in the price. The purchaser refused to pay any additional amount and claimed that $1,800 was the bid amount. The Court did not allow the purchaser to take advantage of the mistake and ordered payment of the balance of the $18,000 on the basis of unjust enrichment.
Well, the decision was appealed by the purchaser (who referred to the trial as a "mockery of the judicial system) and has made its way up to the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan. I invite you to read the Court of Appeal's reasons for dismissing the purchaser's application for leave to appeal (leave to appeal a decision by the Court of Queen's Bench that dismissed an initial appeal), which set out the various interesting grounds of appeal, but here is the conclusion:
[The Purchaser] fails to come to grips with a very simple issue—he was found on the evidence to owe money to pay for farm equipment he purchased at an auction. He had the opportunity at trial to explain why he should not have to pay and passed on the opportunity. His arguments have nothing to do with the fundamental issue, i.e. he did not pay his bid price for equipment because of the mistake of fact and he owes the money. One can only surmise that his actions and his whole argument are simply an attempt to avoid payment.
He has raised no question of law and the appeal has no merit in any event.
The application for leave is dismissed with costs in the usual manner.