A developer behind a condominium project in B.C. has been ordered to pay more than $13 million in damages to dozens of people who bought the project before it went on sale.
More than 30 people who made deposits on condos in what was then called the ALFA development in 2015 and 2016 are suing Anderson Square Holdings and company directors Sunny Ho and Jeremy Leung, alleging breach of contract. sued two people.
The pre-sale purchaser’s contract was terminated by the development company in July 2019. The decision handed down on Friday states:. However, it would eventually go on sale about two years later, albeit under the name “PRIMA” but at a higher price.
An expert report accepted by the judge stated that the value of the units increased by $9.91 million by the time the company terminated the contract.
The $13,093,900 in damages awarded is based on the amount the purchaser paid for the unit prior to the sale and when the purchaser “rejected” the contract in August 2021 by accepting a refund of the earnest money deposit. This represents the difference between the condominium’s appraised value and the condominium’s appraised value.
The judge’s ruling came after a trial last year. The judge noted that by the start of November, occupancy permits had been issued and about half of the development properties had been sold.
The buyer’s argument was essentially that the developer had no right to terminate the contract once it was signed. The developer and its director made contrary claims.
Judge Kevin Lew’s ruling cited a termination notice sent to the buyer, which stated that circumstances beyond their control, such as legal disputes with contractors or inability to obtain financing, meant that the company was unable to “perform its obligations under the contract.” ” This means that it is not possible.
The pre-sale agreement contained two clauses allowing the contract to be terminated prior to the completion date of September 30, 2019, but the judge found that neither of them applied to the circumstances.
“Anderson Square did not have a contractual right to terminate the contract under either (clause) in July 2019.Furthermore, the Private Defendants did not agree to the reasons stated in the termination notice. “It shows that they knew that the statement supported their reliance on (one of the clauses)” was false, misleading, or reckless as to whether it was true. ,” Lu wrote.
However, Lu also held that the two directors were personally liable because their actions did not meet the legal standard for “misperformance” and even if they did, there was no evidence of harm. It also concluded that it could not be held liable. The judge also dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for “unjust enrichment” against the directors, saying the directors had not presented evidence to prove the claim.
Lu also ordered the developer to pay the buyers’ legal costs, except for one plaintiff who sent his son to “impersonate” him during pre-trial proceedings.