Arguably Couturier v Hastie (headnote suggests contract void; holding is that you don't have to pay for goods you won't get).

A

How about The Queen v. Loiselle  [1962] SCR 624 which is very clearly a public nuisance case but which has been interpreted by modern courts as one in private nuisance.

 

Jason Neyers
Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
Western University
Law Building Rm 26
e. jneyers@uwo.ca
t. 519.661.2111 (x88435)

 

From: Peter Radan [mailto:peter.radan@mq.edu.au]
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2017 7:56 PM
To: obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: Misconstrued Cases

 

Colleagues,

 

When in law school - decades ago - I call a professor referring to a case which had come to stand for authority for a legal principle, even though the decision itself did not expound such a principle. Apparently, later cases referred to an incorrect headnote in the report of the case as the principle that emerged from it.

 

I cannot recall the case (or the principle), but would be obliged if anyone can refer me to it - and thereby confirm that I still have a functioning memory. I would also be interested in knowing of any other instances where a case has become authority for a rule or principle which it did not state or declare.

 

Many thanks,

 

Peter Radan

 

Peter Radan FAAL

Professor of Law

 

Macquarie Law School  |   Level 5, W3A Building (Room 527)
 Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia

 

T: +61 2 9850 7091  |  F: +61 2 9850 9686
 

E: peter.radan@mq.edu.au