Search - consideration

The essence of the position taken by the Appellants at the hearing was that they gave consideration to their father for the transfer of the money. ... Subparagraph 160(1)(e)(i) limits the liability of the transferee to the excess of the fair market value of the property transferred over the consideration given for that property. The evidence given by the Appellants makes it quite clear that the payments which they made were not “… consideration given for the property …” within the meaning of the subparagraph. ...

There is no case law that suggests – first of all, we are dealing with consideration, and what we are asking the Court to do is somehow make that consideration at the time of the transfer, even though it occurred after the transfer. So, some sort of document or charge that actually occurred after the transfer can't become part of the consideration and it can't become part of the consideration because it was afterwards, but, more importantly, I'm not exactly sure what that would establish in any event. ... This was just another attempt to mortgage the property jointly, and it doesn't affect the value of the consideration given that frankly it's completely irrelevant. ...

Upon further consideration, EPA concluded that it would be practical only if the appellant moved to Toronto in connection with the commencement of his employment by EPA. ... In my view, paragraphs 6(1)(d) an (e) have no application because the amount of $22,500 was not received as any kind of remuneration for services or consideration for a covenant. ... In the precise words of the letter, the amount was consideration only for "the higher housing prices in Toronto as compared to Edmonton”. ...

A further argument advanced by the appellant was that because there was a loan agreement signed with the bank by the appellant, there was valuable consideration for any transfer that was made and that the consideration for such transfer was $7,500. ... On the question of consideration the respondent argues that there was none. ... She gave no consideration. Insofar as the bank documentation is concerned, the respondent says it is confusing, inconsistent and inconclusive. ...

In paying the $70,000 dividend Référium did in fact wish to pay a dividend, not to pay money in consideration of services rendered. ... I would also add that when an employer pays money in consideration of services rendered by an employee it is salary. ... As I conclude that the sum of $70,000 was paid as a dividend and was not paid for consideration, I have no choice but to uphold the assessment. ...

The appellants claim that their shares of Bethex were worth considerably more than the consideration they received. ... They claim that they gave up those rights in consideration for a certain compensation, that compensation representing the damages for the premature cancellation of their option rights. ... The fact that a certain compensation is paid in consideration of such disposition shows that the person to whom that disposition was made, and who paid for it, attributed a value to it and wished to acquire it. ...

The respondent contends that the assessment is valid in that it is limited to the amount of the benefit received by the appellant at the time of the transfer, assuming that the consideration given, as the appellant assumed half of the mortgaged debt of $83,885, that is an amount of $41,942.50, is worth $13,057.50 less than half of the value of $110,000 assigned to the property transferred, that is an amount of $55,000. 4 Claude Hamel assigned his assets on July 7, 1993, and was automatically discharged from this first bankruptcy on April 7, 1994. 5 Counsel for the appellant claimed first that the undertaking to assume her spouse's portion of the mortgaged debt at the time the residence was transferred was not the only consideration given by the appellant at the time of the transfer. ... Thus, he said, the total value of the consideration for the transfer exceeded the value of the half of the property transferred so that section 160 of the Act did not apply in the circumstances. 17 Counsel for the appellant claimed that the agreement between the parties on this matter did not constitute a counter-letter since there was no simulation as to the nature of the transaction. Although the agreement was not mentioned in the notarized contract witnessing the transfer, in his view, it nevertheless completed the contract since it was supported by commencement of proof in writing of the additional loan taken out by the appellant and the payment of her spouse's personal debts to the Caisse. 18 Counsel for the respondent claimed for his part that there was indeed a simulation as to the consideration for the transfer of one-half of the property by Mr. ...

It is common ground that a person who pays consideration for a taxable supply made in the course of a business activity is required to pay GST at the rate of 5% (formerly 7%) of the value of the consideration. ... The section 3.01(a) payments were subject to GST only if they were consideration for a taxable supply by Costco ... He went on to consider in the alternative whether, if he was wrong on the main point and the section 3.01(a) payments were consideration for a supply by Costco, they were consideration for a taxable supply or an exempt supply. ...

This notarized contract indicates that the [translation] "transfer is made for no consideration and final discharge is given by the transferor" and that the value of the consideration is zero dollars. ... At the time of the transfer on February 11, 2002, the appellant gave no consideration. ... The transfer deed clearly states that no consideration was given and the evidence does not show that the amounts paid several months later were so paid as consideration for the transfer ...

There are four requisites to the validity of a contract: Parties legally capable of contracting; Their consent legally given; Something which forms the object of the contract; A lawful cause or consideration. ... A contract without a consideration, or with an unlawful consideration has no effect; but it is not the less valid though the consideration be not expressed or be incorrectly expressed in the writing which is evidence of the contract. ... The consideration is unlawful when it is prohibited by law, or is contrary to good morals or public order. ...