Patel v. Harriott

Patel v. Harriott

The application judge correctly concluded a binding agreement existed because the appellants signed and returned the offer and the parties subsequently acted consistently with a concluded contract (acceptance of a deposit and conduct limited by the offer), so the matter could be decided on application and specific...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2017 ONCA 538
Parties
Applicant (respondent): Jigar Patel; Applicant (respondent): Amita Patel; Respondent (appellant): Wayne Harriott; Respondent (appellant): Yvette James
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Application for Specific Performance / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Application Judge
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; order for specific performance affirmed; costs awarded to respondents
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Offer and Acceptance, Counteroffer, Remedies, Costs
Source Language
english
Contract Law Real Property Equity Civil Procedure Specific Performance Offer and Acceptance Counteroffer Remedies +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

Jigar Patel

Applicant (respondent)

Amita Patel

Applicant (respondent)

Wayne Harriott

Respondent (appellant)

Yvette James

Respondent (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Application for Specific Performance / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Application Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding agreement for the sale of the property was formed
  2. 2 Whether there were material facts in dispute making an application inappropriate
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' offer was void

Ratio Decidendi

The application judge correctly concluded a binding agreement existed because the appellants signed and returned the offer and the parties subsequently acted consistently with a concluded contract (acceptance of a deposit and conduct limited by the offer), so the matter could be decided on application and specific performance was an appropriate remedy; the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; order for specific performance affirmed; costs awarded to respondents

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Specific performance of the agreement ordered by the application judge affirmed