Shane Coblin and Milaad Hashmi successfully defend claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment made against our clients in a dispute over a failed assignment of a pre-sale condominium agreement in Vancouver. They also obtained an order that the Plaintiff had forfeited to our client the $340,188 she had paid towards the assignment and an order that the Plaintiff pay special costs.
The dispute originated from a 2017 pre-sale condominium interest acquired by the Defendant, who later offered to assign that interest to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff made payments totaling approximately $340,188, representing the first two deposits required under the pre-sale agreement. The agreement collapsed when the Plaintiff decided not to proceed with the acquisition and demanded a refund. Our client refused and treated the Plaintiff’s words and conduct as a repudiation of the agreement entitling her to keep the amounts already paid.
The court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim of fraudulent misrepresentation, finding no evidence that the Defendant misled the Plaintiff about the nature of the transaction or the Defendant’s interest in the pre-sale unit. The court determined that an oral contract existed between the parties, and that there was sufficient evidence in the form of WeChat messages, including WeChat audio messages, videos, and pictures, that showed a meeting of the minds on all the necessary and essential terms.
The court agreed with the Defendant that when the Plaintiff told the Defendant in January of 2019, that she was not going to complete and wanted her money back, those words constituted a clear and unequivocal repudiation of the contract. By electing to accept the repudiation and put the contract at an end, the Defendant was entitled to keep the amounts previously paid to her. The Plaintiff was unsuccessful on her unjust enrichment claim because the payments were made pursuant to a valid and binding contract, which stood as a juridic reason for any enrichment.
The Defendant was also awarded special costs for the whole action because of what were held to be baseless allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation. In this regard, this case provides a useful reminder that allegations of fraud are taken seriously and can give rise to an order for special costs in circumstances where the alleging party had access to information sufficient to conclude that the defendant was merely negligent or had committed no wrongdoing at all. In such circumstances, the allegations themselves are seen to be reprehensible warranting an order of special costs.
