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..”.