Is evidence of a subsequent declaration of intent admissible to enhance damages?

Saskatchewan, Canada


The following excerpt is from King v. Londerville, 1915 CanLII 245 (SK CA):

In Stuart v. Lovell, Lord Ellenborough held that evidence of subsequent declarations of the defendant would be admissible to show the intention of the party if it were at all equivocal, but if they were not admitted for that purpose they certainly were not admissible for the purpose of enhancing the damages.

Other Questions


Is an expert report on damages admissible in evidence for the purpose of responding to a summary judgment motion? (Ontario, Canada)
Does a subsequent declaration of invalid warrant result in the exclusion of evidence obtained as a result of the execution of a search warrant? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can evidence that arises subsequent to a gratuitous transfer be admissible? (Alberta, Canada)
Can evidence of fraudulent intent and fraudulent intent impeach a transfer for good consideration? (British Columbia, Canada)
If the evidence the Respondent submitted was to add details of conversations and was not intended or capable or capable of raising any adverse impli­cations regarding the credibility of the complainant, is it admissible evidence? (Ontario, Canada)
Is new evidence submitted as fresh evidence admissible at trial? (Alberta, Canada)
What summary of evidence is admissible as evidence in an extradition hearing? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is affidavit evidence admissible in a motor vehicle prohibition application? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is evidence of threats made against a witness admissible as non-hearsay? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for accepting or rejecting evidence of intent to pervert the course of justice? (Saskatchewan, Canada)