Jeffrey C. Goldberg

The plaintiff sought additional reasons following a trial decision regarding a failed real estate transaction.

The court clarified that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for $43,154.94, in addition to the $100,000 deposit already released, while dismissing the balance of the $247,552.52 claim.

On costs, the court reduced the defendants' costs award to $10,000 to reflect the plaintiff's partial success in recovering damages, despite the defendants' success on the exchange rate differential issue at trial.

The court also awarded the plaintiff $1,809.42 in pre-judgment interest, adjusting the interest period for the deposit to account for both parties' delay in releasing the funds.

The plaintiff sued the defendants for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a residential property.

While the defendants admitted liability for the shortfall in the subsequent sale price and carrying costs, they disputed the plaintiff's claim for an additional $104,397.45.

This amount represented the increased cost of repaying US dollar promissory notes due to exchange rate fluctuations between the original and actual closing dates.

The court dismissed this portion of the claim, finding that the exchange rate loss on undisclosed promissory notes used to finance a different property was not reasonably foreseeable at the time the contract was formed.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision finding him liable under an indemnity agreement for a commercial lease.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that the appellant signed the agreement and that the landlord made reasonable efforts to mitigate damages.

The court held that the motions judge made no error of law or palpable and overriding error.

The appellants, Van Dorn Demag Corporation and Imperial Eastman, appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for failing to warn the respondent, Siemens Automotive Limited, of the risks associated with reusing repaired hoses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Siemens' inadequate maintenance program did not negate the appellants' duty to warn, as Siemens lacked knowledge of the specific dangers.

The court also upheld the trial judge's apportionment of 15 percent liability to Siemens and rejected Imperial Eastman's argument that it was protected by the learned intermediary doctrine or its catalogue warning.