The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for $75,000, representing the cost incurred to extend the closing of a property they were purchasing, due to the defendants' failure to close on a related sale.
The defendants admitted breach of contract but disputed the remoteness and mitigation of damages.
The court applied principles of remoteness, particularly the Hadley v. Baxendale rule, and found that it was reasonably foreseeable for sellers to rely on proceeds from one sale to fund another, even if not explicitly communicated.
The court also found that the plaintiffs adequately mitigated their damages by paying the extension fee, which avoided potentially higher costs.
Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for $75,000.
