The plaintiff buyer sought specific performance of a condition in an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a commercial investment property, alleging the defendant seller failed to deliver required due diligence documents.
The seller counterclaimed for the $100,000 deposit, arguing the buyer defaulted.
Following a four-day trial, the court dismissed both claims.
The court found the seller had satisfied its document delivery obligations.
Furthermore, the court held that specific performance was unavailable because the property was purchased solely for investment purposes and lacked uniqueness.
The seller's counterclaim was dismissed because the buyer never waived the condition, meaning the agreement became null and void and the deposit was returnable to the buyer.
