The situation which occurred is most common. Common sense should have dictated what should have happened. The Applicant and the Claimant should have agreed, among themselves, that one or the other sell the tractor and the sale proceeds applied in order of priority. The Applicant could sell by virtue of the "consignment" to it, or the Claimant could sell by virtue of section 30(1)(b). Instead of both sides being sensible the matter drags on for a lengthy period. The Sheriff is not responsible for that. The Sheriff is not responsible for the mental impotence of parties.
Finning Tractor & Equipment Co. v. Twin City Equipment Sales & Rentals Ltd. |
1985 CarswellAlta 544 |
Alberta Court of Queen's Beach