Breaching Sale Agreement When the Buyer Fails to Close a Realty SaleHelpful Guide to Understanding Legal Issues Involving Failure to Close a Real Estate Sale 

For various reasons, including a sudden market downswing that follows a strong market upswing, many buyers are unable to fulfill the contractual obligations within an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS).  Simply stated, buyers may abort, or be unable, or unwilling, to properly complete a realty deal in accordance to previously agreed terms.  When the buyer fails to complete a sale, the seller may incur various losses and may bring legal action against the breaching buyer.  The losses may involve the difference between the sale price agreed upon within the sales agreement within the breaching buyer and a subsequent price with a subsequent buyer as well as the expense of various carrying costs the seller incurs during the period of time following the breached sales agreement and the time until the seller can sell to a new buyer.

Market Changes, frustration of contract defence is unavailable

Whereas a buyer that aborts or otherwise fails to close a realty sale may defend the breach on the basis that the contract (APS) was legally frustrated by a force majeure, being a sudden and unexpected change in market conditions, the courts have stated that such is generally viewed as a potential occurrence and is therefore a foreseeable possibility rather than a force majeure event.  Specifically, it was stated in Forest Hill Homes v. Ou, 2019 ONSC 4332 that a frustration would require an unforeseeable event that would render the contractual obligations impossible to fulfill, being something more than a market change, whereas it was said:

[5]  Defendants’ counsel submits that the Defendants’ performance of their obligations under the APS was made impossible by a drastic and unforeseeable drop in the real estate market which made it impossible for them to obtain the financing they needed.  I note that the onus is on the party claiming frustration of a contract: Bang v Sebastian, 2018 ONSC 6226 (CanLII), at paras 27, 30.  Despite this, the Defendants have not obtained any appraisal of the Property, nor have they submitted any other real estate market evidence.  They simply say they could not get financing, and they subjectively attribute this to a change in the market.

[6]  Even if there were evidence to support the Defendants’ assertion, there is nothing about a change in the market that amounts to an unforeseen event that substantially changes the agreement.  This was confirmed in Paradise Homes North West Inc. v. Sidhu, 2019 ONSC 1600 (CanLII), at para 11, where the court reasoned that a change in the market is not the kind of radical change that transforms the nature of the contract:

In this case, the defendant defaulted because he was not able to borrow the amount of money he required to close the deal….  While he states that he was unable to borrow the money because the market prices fell and that this was unforeseen and such a radical change that it completely changed the nature of the APS.  I do not find that to be the case.  The contract was not rendered totally different from what the parties had intended.  The parties had intended that 10 Truro Circle would be sold by the plaintiff to the defendant for the agreed-upon amount of $819,990.  The contract did not change and was not altered.

[7]  There is nothing in the record to support the Defendants’ assertion that something has occurred that frustrated the contract and made it impossible to perform as agreed.

Damages by Failure of Closure

As above, when the buyer fails to complete a realty deal, the seller may incur a loss between the selling price established with the breaching buyer and the selling price established with a subsequent buyer.  The difference between these two sums becomes a compensable loss suffered by the seller; Forest Hill Homes:

[15]  The authorities on damages state that damages “for breach of contract should place the plaintiff in the monetary position that it would have been in had the purchaser not breached the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.”: Bang v Sebastian, 2018 ONSC 6226 (CanLII), at para 39-40.  The loss of the bargain, or loss of the value of the sale (contract price minus market value of the land), is therefore the largest portion of the damages calculation: 100 Main Street East Ltd.  v WB Sullivan Construction, 1978 CanLII 1630 (ON CA), 1978 Carswell Ont 1459, at para 55 (Ont CA).  This refers to the market value as of the closing date, DHMK Properties Inc.  v 2296608 Ontario Inc., 2017 ONCA 961 (CanLII), at para 15, which must be established by appraisal: River Oaks Convenience Plaza Inc.  v Al-Qauasmi, 2009 Carswell Ont 1153 (SCJ) at para 6.

Seller Duties, required to mitigate

As is trite, being very common to the law, a duty to mitigate exists whereas a seller must take effort to minimize losses and the failure of reasonable efforts to minimize loss arise due to the conduct of the non-breaching party rather than the breaching party as such was stated in Southcott Estates Inc.  v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, [2012] 2 SCR 675:

[23]  This Court in Asamera Oil Corp.  v. Seal Oil & General Corp., 1978 CanLII 16 (SCC), [1979] 1 S.C.R.  633, cited (at pp.  660-61) with approval the statement of Viscount Haldane L.C.  in British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co.  v. Underground Electric Railways Company of London, Ltd., [1912] A.C.  673, at p.  689:

The fundamental basis is thus compensation for pecuniary loss naturally flowing from the breach; but this first principle is qualified by a second, which imposes on a plaintiff the duty of taking all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss consequent on the breach, and debars him from claiming any part of the damage which is due to his neglect to take such steps.

[24]  In British Columbia v. Canadian Forest Products Ltd., 2004 SCC 38 (CanLII), [2004] 2 S.C.R.  74, at para.  176, this Court explained that “[l]osses that could reasonably have been avoided are, in effect, caused by the plaintiff’s inaction, rather than the defendant’s wrong.”  As a general rule, a plaintiff will not be able to recover for those losses which he could have avoided by taking reasonable steps.  Where it is alleged that the plaintiff has failed to mitigate, the burden of proof is on the defendant, who needs to prove both that the plaintiff has failed to make reasonable efforts to mitigate and that mitigation was possible (Red Deer College v. Michaels, 1975 CanLII 15 (SCC), [1976] 2 S.C.R.  324; Asamera; Evans v. Teamsters Local Union No.  31, 2008 SCC 20 (CanLII), [2008] 1 S.C.R.  661, at para.  30).

[25]  On the other hand, a plaintiff who does take reasonable steps to mitigate loss may recover, as damages, the costs and expenses incurred in taking those reasonable steps, provided that the costs and expenses are reasonable and were truly incurred in mitigation of damages (see P.  Bates, “Mitigation of Damages:  A Matter of Commercial Common Sense” (1992), 13 Advocates’ Q.  273).  The valuation of damages is therefore a balancing process: as the Federal Court of Appeal stated in Redpath Industries Ltd.  v. Cisco (The), 1993 CanLII 3025 (FCA), [1994] 2 F.C.  279, at p.  302:  “The Court must make sure that the victim is compensated for his loss; but it must at the same time make sure that the wrongdoer is not abused.”  Mitigation is a doctrine based on fairness and common sense, which seeks to do justice between the parties in the particular circumstances of the case.

Whereas the duty to mitigate is upon the seller (presumably the Plaintiff), the onus to prove a failure to mitigate is upon the buyer (presumably the Buyer) which was stated in Degner v. Cabral, 2019 ONSC 1610 where it was said:

[54]  In the decision of 642947 Ontario Ltd.  v. Fleischer (2001), 2001 CanLII 8623 (ON CA), 209 D.L.R.  (4th) 182 (Ont.  C.A.), the court found that as a general rule in a falling market the court should award the vendor damages equal to the difference between the contract price and the highest price obtainable within a reasonable time after the contractual date for completion following the making of reasonable efforts to sell the property commencing on that date.

Furthermore, it was said in Degner that the efforts to mitigate must be performed reasonably rather than perfectly by taking such steps as are reasonable to minimize loss rather than needing to take all possible steps to minimize loss:

[56]  The innocent party need only act reasonably and not perfectly or flawlessly in his efforts to mitigate; he need not take all possible steps to reduce his loss.  O’Hare v. Wyton, 2018 ONSC 3946 (CanLII); Janiak v. Ippolito, 1985 CanLII 62 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R.  146.  That principle was recently followed in the Ontario Court of Appeal decision of Saramia Crescent General Partner Inc.  v. Delco Wire and Cable Limited, 2018 ONCA 519 (CanLII) where the Court @ para 80 confirmed that the duty to mitigate only requires the plaintiff to take reasonable steps, not any and all steps.

Summary Comment

A buyer in a realty transaction is required to complete the deal by properly closing in accordance to the agreement and is without an opportunity to abandon the deal when faced with a dramatic change in market value between the time the deal was agreed to and the closing date.  If the buyer fails to close, the seller may bring legal action for the difference in price between the agreed price and the price within a subsequent transaction.  It is notable that a duty to mitigate exists and the seller must make reasonable efforts by acting with reasonable diligence to pursue a subsequent transaction and the selling price within the subsequent transaction must be reasonable.  Should the breaching buyer seek to argue that the seller failed to adequately mitigate, the breaching buyer must demonstrate that seller failed to act reasonable whereas the seller is without a duty to act perfectly in the mitigation efforts.

For more information, fill out the form below to send a direct inquiry to Marie G. Michaels & Associates.

Confidential information regarding your case should not be sent through this website form.  This website is not intended as providing legal advice.  Legal advice cannot be provided to you via email or over the phone.  Do not include confidential details about your case by email or phone.  Use this website form only to arrange an appointment with a Marie G. Michaels & Associates Professional Corporation representative to discuss the particulars of your legal case.
Logo: Lawyer - Marie G. Michaels & Associates

Marie G. Michaels & Associates Barristers, Solicitors, and Notaries Public

SSL Secured Trust https://familycourt.law