Property Sale Dispute: The Jordans sold a residential property to the Bainses. The sale was contingent on an inspection, which was resolved, but a dispute arose regarding whether it was also subject to the Bainses obtaining financing.
Summary Judgment Motions: Both parties sought summary judgment. The Jordans argued the contract was binding without a financing condition. The Bainses contended it was contingent on obtaining venture funds.
Key Facts:
Contract Terms: The offer to purchase did not include a financing condition.
Financing Dispute: The Bainses claimed they needed venture funding to complete the purchase. They asserted this was understood by all parties.
Inspection Condition: Both parties acknowledged the inspection condition was resolved satisfactorily.
Court Findings:
No Financing Condition: The court found the contract was clear and unambiguous, containing no financing condition.
Breach by Bainses: The Bainses failed to secure funding and complete the purchase by the agreed date. The court held them liable for breach of contract.
Third-Party Claims: Claims against third parties (Bindra and Re/Max) were dismissed as they properly advised including a financing condition, which the Bainses chose to exclude.
Damages:
Purchase Price Difference: The court awarded $740,000 to the Jordans, representing the difference between the original contract price and the resale price.
Consequential Damages: The court awarded additional consequential damages for storage, rental costs, and maintenance, adjusted for reasonable mitigation periods.
Conclusion:
Judgment for the Jordans: The Bainses were ordered to pay $740,000 plus consequential damages and costs.
Third-Party Claims Dismissed: Claims against Bindra and Re/Max were dismissed with costs.
