What is the test for obtaining consent to seize a truck and selling it?

In the instant case, the taking of the truck and the selling of it by the plaintiff, if done without the consent of the defendant, was a tortious act (see Driedger v. Schmidt, supra) which might well have been held to have had the effect of rescinding and terminating the contract and on that ground relieving the buyer from any further obligation in respect of money owing under the mortgage. If done with the defendant’s consent, such consent was only given on the understanding that he was to be relieved of further liability in the matter. If the plaintiff wishes to base its seizure on consent of the defendant, it must abide by the terms on which it was given. If it bases itself on the contract and a claim for deficiency thereunder, it must also fail for the reasons given. The plaintiff’s action is, therefore, dismissed with costs.