A VERY INTERESTING CASE HEADING TO TRIAL
Karami v. Kovari 2019
Buyer's bring a Motion for Summary Judgement (seeking a ruling without trial)
Summary of facts:Real Estate transaction fails to close on November 2nd, 2017. Buyer sues for the return of his $150,000 deposit. Seller claim the deposit and counter-sues in damages of $854,900
Buyer’s Argument: Purchase price is unknown because the contract specifies two purchase prices; i.e. $2,250,000 and $2,200,000. Therefore, no agreement, and, therefore, the $150,000 deposit should be returned – Seller argues purchase price was $2,250,000 – ARGUMENT REJECTED.
Buyer’s Argument: Major cracks were uncovered in the foundation wall and that the seller is responsible to deliver the property in the same condition that the buyers purchased it in = sellers are in breach – TO BE DETERMINED
Buyer’s Argument: the Listing Agent bound the Sellers to a verbal agreement to reduce the purchase price to $1,700,000 – TO BE DETERMINED
REASON THAT MOTION FOR SUMMARY IS REJECTED – THE FOLLOWING ISSUES REQUIRE A TRIAL AND CANNOT BE DEALT WITH THROUGH A SUMMARY JUDGEMENT:1) Whether the deposit is to be returned to the Buyer;2) Whether the property changed drastically in condition between March and October 2017;3) What rights by way of warranty or representation the Buyer had to refuse the transaction because of alleged latent or patent defects of quality;4) whether there were any latent and patent defects of quality;5) whether the Buyer was entitled to rely on s. 14 of the standard form agreement to end the transaction;6) whether there were latent and patent defects to the property;7) whether the principle of caveat emptor applied;8) whether the Listing Agent bound the Sellers to an oral agreement to sell the property at the reduced purchase price of $1,700,000;9) whether the Statute of Frauds notwithstanding, the Listing Agent could bind the Seller by an oral agreement to sell the property at the reduced purchase price of $1,700,000;10) whether the Seller’s knew about the alleged defects in their property;11)Whether the Sellers intentionally covered up the defects and made a fraudulent misrepresentation about the quality of their property before or after the signing of the agreement of purchase and sale;12) Whether the Buyer was ready willing and able to close the transaction at the purchase price of $2,250,000;13) whether the Buyer was ready willing and able to close the transaction at the purchase price of $1,700,000;14) whether the Buyer’s reliance of the alleged defects was disingenuous and his actual motivation was to escape a transaction that had become improvident because of dramatic decline in the real estate market;15) what was the fair market value of the property at the time of the abortive real estate closing with or without the alleged defects of quality; and16) what damages did the Sellers suffer, if any.
Ricky Rathore., BComm., LL.B (Hons.), ABR®, SRS, FRI, Broker of Record – RE/MAX METROPOLIS REALTY, BROKERAGE is a licensed Barrister and Solicitor.
The material on our website is intended to provide only general information and comment only. Members of our staff use their best efforts to ensure that the information found on our website is accurate and timely. However such information should be confirmed by the reader and should not be relied on either directly or indirectly as Legal advice. Please contact us for more information.
REMAX Metropolis Realty, Brokerage