Galloway v. LeBlanc

Galloway v. LeBlanc

The purchase agreement was expressly conditional on the seller obtaining subdivision approval for a lot of not less than 1.75 acres; because subdivision approval was not obtained by the closing date the condition precedent failed, the agreement became void and the purchaser's claim does not succeed, but the deposit held in trust must be returned to the purchasers.

Citation
2008 NSSM 51
Parties
Claimants: Cathy Galloway and Mark Galloway; Defendant/claimant: Curtis LeBlanc and Krista LeBlanc; Defendants: Daniel Spencer and Kandi Spencer and A & H GMAC Real Estate
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Breach of Contract (real Estate) / Decision Following Hearing (adjudication)
Outcome
Claim SCCH 283257 dismissed; deposit of $1,000 returned to Claimants Galloway; claim SCCH 289192 by LeBlanc against Spencer dismissed; counterclaim by Spencer against LeBlanc dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Condition Precedent (subdivision Approval), Return of Deposit, Real Estate Brokerage Commission, Quantum Meruit, Misrepresentation, Indemnity, Costs
Source Language
English
Contract Real Property Agency/brokerage Breach of Contract Condition Precedent (subdivision Approval) Return of Deposit Real Estate Brokerage Commission Quantum Meruit +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cathy Galloway and Mark Galloway

Claimants

Curtis LeBlanc and Krista LeBlanc

Defendant/claimant

Daniel Spencer and Kandi Spencer and A & H GMAC Real Estate

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Breach of Contract (real Estate) / Decision Following Hearing (adjudication)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sellers breached the purchase and sale agreement by failing to obtain subdivision approval by the closing date
  2. 2 Whether the parties had agreed that the subdivided lot would include water frontage
  3. 3 Whether the real estate agents were liable for misrepresentation or entitled to commission or quantum meruit

Ratio Decidendi

The purchase agreement was expressly conditional on the seller obtaining subdivision approval for a lot of not less than 1.75 acres; because subdivision approval was not obtained by the closing date the condition precedent failed, the agreement became void and the purchaser's claim does not succeed, but the deposit held in trust must be returned to the purchasers.

Court Disposition

Claim SCCH 283257 dismissed; deposit of $1,000 returned to Claimants Galloway; claim SCCH 289192 by LeBlanc against Spencer dismissed; counterclaim by Spencer against LeBlanc dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Claim SCCH 283257 dismissed.
  • Deposit held in trust in the amount of $1,000.00 to be returned to Claimants Cathy and Mark Galloway.