Buyer Representation Agreement-Expansion of Role and Interpretation (Ontario)
The following statement appears in the standard Form Buyer Representation Agreement:
“This Agreement applies for the purchase or lease of one real property. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that the Buyer leases a property, this agreement remains in force as set out herein for the purchase of the leased property or a property of the general description indicated above. The leasing of a property by the Buyer does not terminate this Agreement with respect to the purchase of a property.”
The portion indicated in Italics is relatively new.
It starts out with the fact that we were talking about one property. If you leased it and bought it later, you still had to pay a commission.
The problem with the addition is that we are no longer talking about one property.
If you leased a property, and then bought another property, you would still pay a commission.
That is fine, but that’s “two properties”, not one. The Contra proferentem rule would likely apply in this case. The two statements are clearly in conflict. They both can’t be right. Consequently, the rule construing the interpretation against the interest of the person drafting it and in favour of the consumer will work against the Brokerage in this case.
The simple change in order to enforce OREA’s desired result would be to remove the original reference to “one property”, that’s what leads to the confusion.
Brian Madigan LL.B., Broker
Comments (2)Subscribe to CommentsComment