Buyer Representation Agreement (OREA): Difference between revisions
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
==[http://canlii.ca/t/fqbwr Team Realty Inc. v. Kanata 1075 March Road Project Inc., 2012 ONSC 1255 (CanLII)]== | ==[http://canlii.ca/t/fqbwr Team Realty Inc. v. Kanata 1075 March Road Project Inc., 2012 ONSC 1255 (CanLII)]== | ||
[157] I do not accept as credible Mr. Adada’s testimony that he did not receive a copy of the BLG letter of December 15th until after the transaction closed on December 20, 2008. | |||
[158] During his testimony, Mr. Adada agreed that he made no objection to the multiple representation until this proceeding was commenced. |
Revision as of 05:01, 9 March 2020
AJ Lamba Realty v Crainic, 2016 ONSC 4153 (CanLII)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
[7] In his Reasons for Judgment the learned trial judge set out the following, in part: “The Court:
- The parties entered in a buyer representation agreement dated the 11th of May, 2012, wherein the defendant agreed to pay 2.5 per cent commission on any house purchased during the term of the agreement, which was from the 11th of May, 2012, to the 30th of September, 2012.
- The defendant purchased a house through another real estate agent on the 2nd of August, 2012. The plaintiff claims for lost commission due to the breach of this agreement in the amount of $10,750.
- The defence pleads that he believed he was signing with ReMax, not the plaintiff. He believes he did not realize the term of the agreement, although he admits to signing and that he had an opportunity to review it. The evidence also discloses that the defendant signed a separate document acknowledgment the signing of the terms of the buyer representation agreement.
- I accept the evidence of the plaintiff, that the agreement was explained and that the defendant indicated he understood the terms from his previous purchase. The defendant states he thought the term had expired. I do not accept the defendant’s evidence. I find that he knew the terms of the agreement, that he was aware of its currency when he purchased. The emails in August and the timing of the purchase are strong evidence of his state of mind. He admits that he received a reduced price on the purchase and a reduced commission on his sale by using the vendor’s agent.
- I find therefore, that the defendant knew and understood the terms of the buyer’s representation agreement, that he knowingly breached the agreement, and is liable for the lost commission in the amount of $2,750 [sic].
- Mr. McKechnie: It’s 10,750.
- The Court: Ten thousand, seven hundred and fifty.”
[12] The trial transcript does not disclose that any exhibit was filed at trial confirming that the Appellant’s wife had signed the Agreement of Purchase and Sale. In any event, the Appellant never advanced an argument at trial relating to that issue and it is clear from the learned trial judge’s reasons that such an issue was never in play at the trial.
[13] The appeal is therefore dismissed.
York National Realty Inc. v. Jackson, 2019 ONSC 2033 (CanLII)
[68] It is important to note that an agent can ask the buyer to sign either a Buyer Representation Agreement (BRA) or a Buyer Customer Service Agreement (BCSA). When a BRA is signed, the brokerage acts as the buyer’s representative and owes the client a fiduciary duty.
[70] The BRA and the BCSA create two distinct relationships with different legal obligations. An agent cannot be both a buyer’s agent and a buyer’s customer service representative. The buyer is either a client or a customer. It is obviously important for the brokerage to get the buyer to sign the correct agreement that accurately reflects the intended relationship between the parties.
Team Realty Inc. v. Kanata 1075 March Road Project Inc., 2012 ONSC 1255 (CanLII)
[157] I do not accept as credible Mr. Adada’s testimony that he did not receive a copy of the BLG letter of December 15th until after the transaction closed on December 20, 2008.
[158] During his testimony, Mr. Adada agreed that he made no objection to the multiple representation until this proceeding was commenced.