Tibbles v. Gloster, 2019 ONSC 2167

wp:paragraph

INTERESTING CASE

KEY POINTS:

A Real Estate Agent working as a part of a Real Estate Team are pursuing Buyers for defamation, damages for unjust enrichment etc.

Buyers had retained the Agent to assist them to find a home in Ottawa.

The retainer ended when the Buyers were about to make an offer on a house and the Agent and the Buyer disagreed about how the retainer would be formalized (Buyer Representation Agreement).

The Buyers were under the impression that a BRA was not required.

The buyers further indicate that they had not signed one when they bought their first home and were not sure why an agreement was necessary especially since they understood that the sellers would pay the commission.

The Agent indicated that without a BRA she could not assist them and other e-mails were exchanged.

The Agent subsequently sent the Buyers an invoice for $1,559.00, representing her calculation of the value of the time she had spent showing them houses on the weekend.

The Buyers responded to the invoice with a letter which the Agent believed were defamatory.

Dismissed

READ FULL CASE: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2019/2019onsc2167/2019onsc2167.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQALcmVhbCBlc3RhdGUAAAAAAQ

/wp:paragraph


Featured Posts
Recent Posts