Summary: Zhenhong Wu appealed against Suevilia Development Corporation regarding a dispute over adjusted closing dates for a pre-construction home purchase valued at $3,380,000, with Wu having deposited $300,000.

Key Points:

• Background: Wu agreed to buy a pre-construction home, with initially set critical closing dates. Both parties later agreed to adjust these dates.
• Dispute: Wu contested the adequacy of Suevilia’s notices that further adjusted the closing dates, arguing they were non-compliant with the Tarion Addendum requirements. He claimed Suevilia was not ready to close by the last adjusted date as the occupancy permit was issued a day after.
• Legal Proceedings:
  • Lower Court: Found that Suevilia substantially complied with notice requirements and that Wu was not prepared to close on the adjusted date, leading to the forfeiture of his deposit.
  • Appeal Court: Upheld the lower court’s decision, stating minor deviations in notice terminology did not constitute a breach of the agreement.

Outcome: The appeal was dismissed, affirming that Suevilia had the right to adjust closing dates and that the minor deviations in their notices did not breach the agreement terms. The court upheld the forfeiture of Wu’s deposit due to his failure to close, awarding costs of $15,500 against him. This case highlights the importance of compliance with contractual terms in real estate transactions.