In the present case, the applicant submits that, on the basis of a loan commitment from a bank and the affidavit of the applicant`s mortgage broker, it was willing, willing and able to provide the service. However, the respondent`s allegation that the plaintiff refused to close its doors in August 2014 unless Mr. Dunning agreed to reduce the contract price from $5,500,000 to $4,800,000 raises a valid question of fact as to whether the plaintiff was genuinely willing to proceed. Therefore, the claimant`s request for summary judgment on his specific entitlement to benefits is DISMISSED. The contract also provided for a closing date of June 24, 2014. As a condition of closure, Mr. Dunning had to obtain and present certificates of estoppel from commercial tenants who were then occupying the property. The applicant alleges that on 24. June 2014 because Mr. Dunning was unable to obtain the required stubble certificates. The respondents counter that the parties did not attempt to close on June 24, 2014 and that the applicant was aware that Mr. Dunning was taking steps to obtain the thatch certificates.
On 28 July 2014, Mr Way, acting on behalf of Mr Dunning, sent the applicant a letter in which he mentioned 11 August 2014 as the new deadline. Mr. Way`s letter also stressed that “time is of the essence.” After considering the above-mentioned principles and the undisputed evidence, the court finds that Drozd is entitled to dismiss the appeal. Paragraph 13.02, which takes into account the exact situation in which the seller is unable to transfer ownership in accordance with the contract, expressly limits Horrigan`s remedies to two options: (1) cancel the sale and obtain reimbursement of its deposit and ownership fees, or (2) repossess ownership subject to defects of ownership, with a maximum credit of the maximum amount of the cost, which in this case was $5,000.00. Drozd made it clear to Horrigan in the 2013 letter that the cost of clarifying the title would exceed seven times $5,000.00 and therefore it was not required to take the necessary legal steps to clarify the title. Nothing in the 2013 letter suggests Drozd`s refusal to conclude. The plaintiff presented evidence that the property had been registered by the defendants with a real estate agent. He met with the defendants more than once, discussed with them various aspects of the property, and negotiated an agreed price and terms of sale. Both parties consulted legal counsel. The plaintiff states in his affidavit (and has provided evidence) that he has fulfilled all his contingencies under the contract and that he was (and remains) ready, willing and able to purchase the property.
The Grievor has discharged the workload of this application for summary judgment on certain benefits. LegalTech refers to software applications that provide or are used in any form of legal service. Everyone benefits greatly from LegalTech, as the software automatically handles legal tasks, such as creating contracts, terms and conditions or data protection guidelines. LegalTech solutions make it easier to perform or receive legal services. Our team of dedicated lawyers, data protection officers and legal advisors from different parts of the world work with our software development department to develop LegalTech products. On this page, you will find the legal definition and meaning of Ready, Willing And Able, written in simple English, as well as examples of how it is used. With respect to her specific entitlement to benefits, the applicant submits that she is entitled to summary judgment because she essentially paid the contract by offering the $200,000 down payment. In addition, the applicant alleges that it was ready, willing and able to close on the closing date of 24 June 2014. The applicant submits a loan undertaking from a bank and an affidavit from its mortgage broker in support of its intention to enter into the process. The Court also notes that the defendants have not raised a discernible question of fact as to the specific ground for enforcement of the plaintiffs. The defendants claim that the contract is void on the basis of the notification they received from the applicants, pursuant to Article 10 of the contract, that the land had not been subject to the environmental assessment.
However, this allegation is unfounded. Paragraph 10 expressly provides that failure of tests and/or inspections must be notified in writing in accordance with article 24 of the contract, which provides in paragraph 24 of the contract: “ready and disposed” means that the buyer must be willing to conclude the contract on the terms offered and that this situation must not be hindered by an external factor; for example, the fact that a potential purchaser of a lease was not a suitable assignee for the existing owner (Comley v Wellman [1948] 65 WN (NSW) 268 (Aus); Dellafiora v. Lester [1962] 1 WLR 1208, [1962] 3 All ER 393 (CA); Nelson v.
최신 댓글