The court ordered a $150,000 deposit forfeited to the sellers after the buyer breached a real estate agreement, rejecting defences of non est factum and undue influence.
The applicants (sellers) sought declarations that the respondent buyer breached an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for a property and that the $150,000 deposit be forfeited.
The buyer argued she did not properly sign the APS due to her agent's conduct (non est factum, undue influence) and sought to convert the application to an action to add her agent.
The court found the buyer had indeed signed and breached the APS, rejecting her defences as not vitiating the contract between the buyer and sellers.
The court ordered the forfeiture of the deposit, finding it was not disproportionate to the sellers' damages and that retaining it was not unconscionable.
The deposit held in trust was ordered released to the sellers.
The applicants were given a deadline to decide on pursuing further damages.
