canada real-estate
Buying a condo with no condition and end up finding problems in the status certificate
<p>We purchased a condo two weeks ago. We do not have an real estate agent and we end up dealing with the seller's real estate agent directly. </p>

<p>We're told by the seller agent that there are multiple bidders bidding at the same time. We're under the impression that in order to have a shot at the condo we have to waive the following condition. </p>

<p><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/HDTIG.png" alt=""></p>

<p>Which is we can choose to withdrawal the offer after lawyer viewing of the status certificate. </p>

<p>We were hesitate to waive the conditions but the agent says condos are usually fine and he said he checked with the seller and there is nothing to worry about. </p>

<p>After we win the bid our real estate lawyer examined the status certificate and says there's something called Kitec plumbing in the status certificate, which usually costs condo owners 20k to fix this issue. </p>

<p>We're wondering if there's something that I can do from my side? If the seller do not agree to lower the price for 20k is there something that I can do? Thanks. </p>

<p>I am sorry to sound unsympathetic, but it sounds as if you have discovered, expensively, why some people employ their own agents when buying in fields with which they are unfamiliar.</p>

<p>The seller has no conceivable duty to lower the price, and (assuming that "we won the bid" means you signed a binding contract) there is nothing you can do but pay the stipulated price. There is a term in the standard conditions that would have protected you in this situation, but you waived it voluntarily and with understanding of what it meant.</p>

<p>You could in theory have a case for misrepresentation against the agent, but before even speaking to a lawyer you need to consider </p>

<ul>
<li><p>If the agent is paid by the seller, he has a fiduciary duty to obtain the best price for his principal; there is no corresponding duty to you since he has no contract with you.</p></li>
<li><p>You were "under the impression" that the seller would only consider bids that waived this condition. Even if the agent told you so directly, it may well have been true, in which case the judge would expect you to ask yourself <em>why</em> the seller was imposing an abnormal condition. Similarly it is probably true that "most condos are fine". It's irrelevant at best and misleading at worst when you only want to buy one of them; but as I said above, somebody you're not employing is not obliged to give you good advice.</p></li>
<li><p>If you can prove that the agent told you that he had checked with the seller and there was no problem that would justify you retaining the condition, then that was fraudulent and you could probably sue the agent for your additional expenses. However, an important part of the agent's job is to do everything possible to persuade you to sign short of actual fraud; are you quite certain of the actual words he used? If your unsupported evidence is "He told us so in the hotel lobby" and the agent's evidence is "No, I didn't", your point is not legally proved. A jury <em>might</em> believe you rather than him; but probably (IANAL) the case would never be allowed to get that far. </p></li>
</ul>
