Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 29 NOVEMBER 2021

Sellers Not Allowed To Rely On "Escape Clause" To Accept A Better Offer

Gardiner Roberts LLP
Gardiner Roberts LLP
Contributor
Explore more from Gardiner Roberts LLP

In some cases, sellers may wish to ‘hedge their bets' by accepting a conditional offer that contains a term allowing them to continue to market the property for sale until the deal is firm.

CanadaReal Estate and Construction
James R.G. Cook
James R.G. Cook
Author LinkedIn connections

In some cases, sellers may wish to 'hedge their bets' by accepting a conditional offer that contains a term allowing them to continue to market the property for sale until the deal is firm. Such terms are a matter of negotiation between the buyer and seller, but the seller must comply with any obligations to allow the first buyer the opportunity to complete the purchase.

Grayson v. Creasy, 2021 ONSC 7637 (CanLII) involved a failed real estate transaction in Peterborough, Ontario between the applicant buyers and the respondent sellers which contained a term allowing the sellers to continue to market the property.

In January 2021, the applicants saw that the respondents' home was for sale. They were looking for a larger home to accommodate their growing family, and the property met their wish list, as it was a larger house in the same neighbourhood and school district, and even had a backyard pool.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Ontario’s Mandatory Annual Holdback Release Starts In 2027: What Owners And Contractors Need To Know

Starting in 2027, all Ontario project owners with contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2026, and most owners with contracts dating back to July 1, 2018, must start releasing statutory holdback to their contractors on an annual basis. This requirement is the latest in a series of construction payment reforms under Ontario’s Construction Act. It replaces the traditional model of retaining holdback until substantial performance. Owners and contractors who fail to comply with the notice and payment timelines face exposure to interest claims, payment disputes, and adjudication proceedings.
CanadaReal Estate and Construction
Miller Thomson
Miller Thomson
Article

Plaintiffs Awarded A Total Of $800,000 In Damages For Defamation (Murdy v. Barrette)

A Canadian court awarded $800,000 in damages to a couple defamed by serious false allegations of sexual assault and criminal misconduct spread through social media. The case examines how factors like the severity of accusations, use of social media platforms, and a defendant's failure to mount a defense can dramatically escalate defamation damages beyond typical awards.
CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Gardiner Roberts LLP
Gardiner Roberts LLP
Article

Lights, Camera Infractions: A Review Of Ontario’s Automatic Enforcement System Offence Regime, The Risks To Commercial Vehicle Carriers And How Operators Can Protect Themselves

Ontario's automatic enforcement system (AES) offences, captured by red light cameras and similar technology, pose significant regulatory risks to commercial vehicle carriers. These offences carry the maximum 5 CVOR penalty points—equivalent to impaired driving or criminal negligence—yet are nearly impossible to defend or resolve through plea negotiations.
CanadaTransport
Gardiner Roberts LLP
Gardiner Roberts LLP
Article

Lawyer Receives 6-Month Suspension For Misuse Of Artificial Intelligence (Law Society Of Ontario v. Lee)

The misuse of artificial intelligence by litigants and lawyers continues to be alarming. Although it is well-documented that generative artificial intelligence platforms have a tendency to produce inaccurate answers to legal questions, and, moreover, to produce output which references non-existing cases or which inaccurately portrays legal propositions in existing cases, these tools continue to be used recklessly.
CanadaCriminal Law
Gardiner Roberts LLP
Gardiner Roberts LLP