Singh v. Singh

Singh v. Singh

The Second Assignment Agreement and the Head Contract unambiguously provided for return of the deposit if completion did not occur by the latest completion date; the property was sold by court order so the defendant was incapable of performing and therefore breached the assignment agreement; the plaintiff is...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2024 BCSC 425
Parties
Plaintiff: Sukhdeep Singh; Defendant: Arminder Singh; Third Party: Pardeep Singh Sandhu; Third Party: Dilpreet Singh Dhillon; Third Party: West Point Pacific Construction (64 Ave) Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Breach of Contract Assignment of Contract for Sale of Land (deposit Recovery) / Summary Judgment Application (rule 9 6)
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the plaintiff; defendant ordered to repay deposit with interest and to pay costs.
Legal Topics
Assignment of Contract, Return of Deposit, Summary Judgment, Foreclosure Impact on Contractual Performance
Source Language
english
Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Assignment of Contract Return of Deposit Summary Judgment Foreclosure Impact on Contractual Performance

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 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sukhdeep Singh

Plaintiff

Arminder Singh

Defendant

Pardeep Singh Sandhu

Third Party

Dilpreet Singh Dhillon

Third Party

West Point Pacific Construction (64 Ave) Ltd.

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Breach of Contract Assignment of Contract for Sale of Land (deposit Recovery) / Summary Judgment Application (rule 9 6)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a genuine issue requiring trial or whether plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment
  2. 2 If a genuine issue exists, whether it can be determined by summary trial under Rule 9-7
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff is entitled to return of the $100,000 deposit paid under the Second Assignment Agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The Second Assignment Agreement and the Head Contract unambiguously provided for return of the deposit if completion did not occur by the latest completion date; the property was sold by court order so the defendant was incapable of performing and therefore breached the assignment agreement; the plaintiff is entitled to return of the $100,000 deposit plus interest and costs, and unresolved third party issues do not affect the plaintiff's claim.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the plaintiff; defendant ordered to repay deposit with interest and to pay costs.

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $100,000
  • Interest awarded pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 79