Karami v. Kovari 2019

A VERY INTERESTING CASE HEADING TO TRIAL

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; and

16) what damages did the Sellers suffer, if any.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2019/2019onsc637/2019onsc637.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQALcmVhbCBlc3RhdGUAAAAAAQ