Appellant claims the Agreement of purchase & sale was frustrated. Or alternatively, that there was an IMPLIED condition in the agreement that the offer was conditional on the sale of her home and for financing.
Originally, the home was listed for sale March 2017. 13 offers were made on the home. The appellants offer was accepted at $1,871,000 with a deposit of $80,000. The offer was UNCONDITIONAL.
Evidence was presented by 2 Real Estate Agents that after the ON Govt policy announcement, within days of the announcement, real estate prices in the area dropped between 20-30%.
Respondent subsequently relisted and resold for $619,112 less than the appellant had agreed to pay.
No error in the motion judge’s disposition was found.
The supervening event (announcement of a government policy) did not constitute frustration of the agreement.
The Appellant deliberately did not include a condition to seller her home or obtain financing because she wanted her offer to be accepted. She “would reasonably have known that there was a risk her home would not sell..”.
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