A handwritten document intended to facilitate the sale of a commercial property for significantly less than its appraised value has been upheld by the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
This document became a key piece of evidence in the dispute between the plaintiffs, Abdul Saboor Mohammad Latif and Haris Azimuddin, and the defendant, Chandu Nair. Both men had sued and countersued each other over the failed private sale of a section of Nile in a commercial strata development in Surrey.
Mr. Latif and Mr. Azimuddin have entered into an oral agreement to purchase Mr. Nile’s property, an auto body shop located two doors down from their auto sales and service business, AFG Auto Sales, located in the same development, for $450,000. claimed to have reached.
The lawsuit further alleged that a handwritten document signed by Nail formalized the oral agreement and served as a contract of sale, but was breached when Nail changed his mind and attempted to return the earnest money deposit.
Mr. Neel told the court that he never verbally agreed to sell the property for $450,000 and only discussed the possibility of selling it to the AFG owner. He stated his intention to sell for $550,000, but claimed there was no formal agreement, oral or written.
This property is located on 76 Avenue in the Newton neighborhood of Surrey. BC Assessment describes it as a 1,202-square-foot “tiered warehouse” and lists its assessed value as of July 1, 2023, at $839,500.
Mr. Nehru in his counterclaim alleges that Mr. Latif and Mr. Azimuddin abused the court process by submitting certificates to the effect that the ownership of his properties was pending, and that such abuse caused the plaintiffs to It was claimed to have triggered an agreement to sell the property to another buyer. Substantially more money could be lost.
Judge Janet Winringham ruled on both sides’ arguments on Friday: Posted online on Monday.
Questions about documents
At the heart of Mr. Nehru’s abuse of process counterclaim was his claim that the handwritten document was altered after it was signed.
The document, reproduced in the court’s judgment, lists the names and addresses of the parties and is labeled “Addendum to Purchase and Sale Agreement.” In the center is the date “2021/09/02” and “Price $450,000.”
Other information contained in the document is a statement that Azimuddin provided $10,000 in cash for the purchase of the Nile unit, and two signed lines (one next to $10,000 and one next to “15,000”). (one line next to “Dollar”).
The $15,000 figure represents the initial deposit, which was already paid by bank draft, according to the ruling.
Mr Nile told the court that the handwritten document was a receipt and that when it was submitted it only had lines for two deposits. No other details were listed, including the $450,000 price tag, Nile said.
The plaintiffs argued that they had not tampered with the document, but Winringham did not proceed to the conclusion that it had. Rather, the judge noted that he felt that Latif and Azimuddin’s testimony was “curious about important points.”
Specifically regarding the handwritten agreement, Winringham found the plaintiffs’ testimony “lacking credibility and credibility.”
price and timing
The plaintiffs argued throughout the court process that the parties had agreed on a purchase price of $450,000, but the judge noted that Mr. Nair was “adamant” that they had not.
Mr Winringham was satisfied on the evidence in the case that Mr Nail was never provided with a draft sales agreement and should have had an opportunity to raise concerns about the price.
Furthermore, judges hold that plaintiffs, as litigants, have the burden of proving their case on a balance of probabilities, i.e., plaintiffs have the burden of proving their case on a balance of probabilities, i.e., plaintiffs have the burden of proving their case on a balance of probabilities; He emphasized that it must be proven that the possibility is high.
“We do not believe that the burden has been alleviated for plaintiffs to prove that Mr. Nehru accepted his offer to sell the property for $450,000,” the ruling said.
“Having regard to the relevant circumstances, that figure is less than what I believe Mr. Nehru would be prepared to accept for the property and unless a written agreement has been provided by the plaintiffs, Mr. Nehru would not be able to purchase the property. There is no indication that he would have accepted to do so.” Mr. Nehru has never had sufficient opportunity to consider and dispute the $450,000 figure. ”
Similarly, Mr Winringham concluded that there were “several issues” with the production of handwritten documents, making the $450,000 price tag unreliable.
According to the ruling, the plaintiffs argued throughout the trial that the documents were created at the same time as the $10,000 cash payment, which occurred in January 2022.
However, testimony from a paralegal hired by the plaintiffs to draft the formal purchase and sale agreement was inconsistent with this schedule. She told the court that Latif told her about her handwritten agreement and $10,000 cash payment when he first contacted her in the fall of 2021, and Winringham accepted this evidence.
The judge also said that Mr. Nile, a real estate agent hired to find a new buyer and who was attempting to return the deposit to Mr. Latif and Mr. Azimuddin, had described the plaintiffs’ handwritten documents as “receipts.” He also mentioned that he had testified repeatedly.
“This description is consistent with how Mr. Nehru described the handwritten document and how it was presented for signature during his testimony,” the ruling states. .
“In this regard, I accept Mr Nile’s explanation as to why he signed the document. He had received a cash deposit and signed his name to acknowledge receipt of that money.”
Additionally, Winringham pointed out that the plaintiffs did not provide Nair with a copy of the handwritten document. According to the judge, if both parties had had copies of the documents in question, “there would not have been a dispute over their contents.”
All of these factors contributed to Winringham’s conclusion that on the balance of probabilities the plaintiffs’ claims were not proven.
counterclaim
Winringham also dismissed Nair’s counterclaim, finding that there was insufficient evidence to support his claim that the handwritten documents had been tampered with, although he established that he had suffered a loss as a result of the plaintiff’s certificate of pendency. .
“It was not found that the handwritten documents had been tampered with by the plaintiffs,” the judgment states.
“Rather, we conclude that the uncertainty surrounding the production and timing of the handwritten document led to plaintiffs failing to meet their evidentiary burden of proving the existence of an oral or other agreement to purchase the property.”
Absent evidence that the document had been tampered with, the judge found no reason to conclude that a certificate of pendency should not be filed.
“The record before me does not demonstrate that Plaintiff’s conduct was egregious, and the record does not reveal any abuse of process,” the decision reads.
With both the claim and counterclaim dismissed, the parties agreed that Mr. Nile would repay $25,000 to Mr. Latif and Mr. Azimuddin, according to the judgment.
Mr Winringham also ordered each party to pay the other party’s legal costs on unsuccessful claims, but left both parties with the option of submitting alternative arrangements for costs.
“As the prevailing party, the defendant is entitled to the costs of defending the action,” the judgment concludes. “As the prevailing party in the counterclaim, the plaintiff is entitled to the costs of defending the counterclaim.”