Reported as: 2018 SKPC 24
Docket Number: SC 50/17 , PC17116
Court: Provincial Court
- Contracts � Breach � Damages
Digest: The plaintiffs, a real estate company and one of their agents, sought payment of the real estate commission owing to them by the plaintiffs. The agent had successfully sold the defendants� residence whereupon the defendants agreed to employ and exclusively use the services of the plaintiffs to find a new home during the period from June 27 to August 31, 2016. In return the plaintiffs would receive a commission of 2 percent on any home that the defendant might purchase during that time. The parties met on June 27 to sign various documents that included a contract between them. It was a standard form contract developed for use only by members of the Association of Saskatchewan Realtors and included the provision for the commission and the percentage. The contract was filled out, signed and dated by the parties. The agent testified that she showed the defendants at least 20 houses that required her to preview them and arrange the viewings. After drafting two different offers to purchase on behalf of the defendants, the second one was conditionally accepted by the vendors. The agent remained involved in the transaction while she was on holidays and when she returned on July 5, she learned that the defendants had decided not to proceed with the purchase. The defendants then made another offer to purchase through a different realtor on July 9 and the offer of $475,000 was accepted. The defendants claimed that they did not remember signing the exclusive brokerage contract and denied signing it or owing any commissions to the plaintiffs, whom they argued had not done an adequate job for them as their real estate agents.
HELD: The plaintiffs were given judgment. The damages payable to them were calculated as two percent of the purchase price of the house plus GST which equaled the amount of $8,967. The plaintiffs were awarded pre-judgment interest on that amount. The court found that there was a contract. The defendants were careless in ascertaining which documents they signed and could not rely on the defence of non est factum. The defendants breached the contract when they retained another realtor and...