The plaintiffs sued after purchasing commercial premises intended for use as an auto body shop, alleging the defendants breached the agreement of purchase and sale by selling property unsuitable for that use, including a non-compliant spray booth, and by commencing wrongful mortgage litigation.
The court held the agreement was for the sale of property, not a business, expressly disclaimed representations or warranties regarding the lawfulness of future use, and placed inspections and environmental compliance inquiries on the buyers, who waived those conditions.
The court also found the mortgage enforcement proceedings were not wrongful, as the plaintiffs were in default and the defendants ultimately obtained judgment on the vendor take-back mortgages.
The plaintiffs failed to prove any damages with documentation or reliable evidence.
The action was dismissed.
