According to CBC News, the BC High Court recently issued a ruling that the Chinese handwritten sales contract for a property in Richmond is legally binding, and the buyer must compensate the seller for the $400,000 difference in the price due to the failure of the transaction caused by his own breach.
This legal battle lasted more than seven years, and the operations such as acquaintance transactions, WeChat negotiations, handwritten contracts in Chinese, and live-before-buy are common in the Chinese community.
Because it was too brain-burning, the case was rejected by the summary procedure court two years ago, and now the dust has finally settled. Xiaobian will take you to see how the judge decides, so that how to avoid lightning and protect their legitimate rights and interests in the future can also have points in their hearts.
Typical acquaintance trading
The plaintiff in this case, the seller, Ms. Yang, intended to sell her large detached house on Blundell Street, west of 1 Richmond Road. She originally wanted to find an agent, so she asked friends around her to help recommend her, including Ms. Li, who she met because of dancing. As a result, when Ms. Li heard this, she said that she didn't have to go far, and she bought the house.
After Ms. Li and her son viewed the house together, the two parties signed a contract for the sale and purchase of the house drafted in Chinese in early May 2017.
The one-page, concise contract agreed on a sale price of $2,888,000 and a $100,000 deposit to allow the buyer to move into the property.
The first payment of $100,000 was paid in full by July 10, 2017, the second payment of $800,000 was paid in full by December 30, 2017, and the remaining payment of $1,000,000 was paid in full after Ms. Li sold one of her properties.
Ms. Li paid a deposit of $100,000 in two installments in May 2017 and moved into the house, and began to bear the costs associated with the property, including land taxes, utilities and insurance.
In July 2017, Ms. Li made her first payment of $100,000.
In September 2017, the parties signed a standard form contract for the sale of the house in English, which is valid until November 20, 2017. Both parties agree that the sole purpose of the English contract is to assist the buyer in obtaining a loan from the bank.
Unsurprisingly, Ms. Li claimed that she had not been able to get the loan. But this did not delay her from buying another house, and she also bought more than one.
On November 21, 2017, the day after her contract expired, Ms. Lee's property on West 20th Street in Vancouver was sold.
In early March 2018, Ms. Lee purchased a property on Grainville Street in Richmond. In April, she made a $2.7 million offer for another property in Richmond.
On April 25, Ms. Lee's family moved out of their house on Blundell Street.
Two days later, Ms. Yang sued Ms. Li to the court, demanding an order for possession of the subject property, confirmation of the validity of the Chinese contract, a deposit of $100,000 and damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, as well as interest and other expenses.
The defendant, Ms. Li, then filed a counterclaim, arguing that the Chinese contract was not binding or enforceable, that the plaintiff was not ready, willing or able to perform the contract that caused the transaction to fail, and that the plaintiff should refund the deposit and purchase price already paid by the defendant.
At first, the case took the summary procedure, but because the most critical contract and a large number of WeChat chat record evidence were in Chinese, and most of the translations and statements of the two sides were in the opposite direction, the judge was dizzy, saying that the summary procedure of this case was bullying and refused to be heard, and the two parties either went private or went to the regular litigation procedure.
Handwritten contracts in Chinese are legally binding
In April, B.C. Superior Court Judge Steven Wilson ruled in the case, finding that Chinese contracts are legally binding and enforceable in B.C. despite differences in translation, custom, and interpretation.
Ms. Li's arguments were twofold:
1. The reason for the failure of the transaction is that the seller is not ready, unwilling or able to perform the contract. In response, the judge said that Ms. Li's family moved into the house after paying the deposit and lived there for almost a year, which showed that the plaintiff was ready, willing and able to complete the transaction on the closing date.
2. The Chinese contract is not binding or enforceable because it is indefinite. Ms. Li said that although there is no express provision in the Chinese contract, the validity of the agreement depends on her success in obtaining a mortgage.
In this regard, the judge said that the contract in Chinese is valid. Ms. Li was well aware of the nature of the contract. "While I acknowledge that Ms. Lee cannot read or write English, and that her ability to understand spoken English may be limited, I do not think she is as simple or naïve as she portrays her to be," the ruling reads. ”
Crucially, Ms. Lee was unable to provide the documents to apply for a mortgage for the Blundell Street house. Since it could not be proved that she applied for a loan, there was no evidence to support her claim that she was unsuccessful in obtaining a loan. And in the four months that Ms. Li repeatedly claimed that she could not get a loan for the property, she bought two other houses and got the loans on both of them.
In addition, the uncertainties mentioned by Ms. Li, including the closing date and interest costs, do not invalidate the Chinese contract.
In short, the Chinese contract is valid, and Ms. Li passively performed the contract and allowed the transaction to expire and fail, and the plaintiff was not at fault and should be compensated for the losses suffered.
Ms. Yang eventually sold the Blundell Street house to another buyer in 2018 for $2.48 million, about $400,000 less than the price Ms. Lee paid under the contract.
The judge ruled that Ms. Li should pay Ms. Yang the difference in price and interest, and bear the costs of the litigation.
I have to say that this judge is full of brains, and not knowing English and not knowing the law are completely different concepts and cannot be confused. Language is only the carrier, and the legal provisions are the substance. The Chinese contract is well signed and legally tenable, in