The Buyer - Excuses, Excuses, Excuses

Shortly after posting on Friday
January 11th, 2008, I get a call
from the Buckingham agent. He
claimed that he just received an
email indicating that I sent a letter.
He said, "they didn't get it." The
claim had the ring of b.s. but
I didn't tell him that. I wasn't in
the mood to argue. He asked
who I sent the letter to. I told him
EWCP's lawyer in Chatham and lawyer#1.

I had also sent a copy to EWCP/EWCC's
in-house lawyer in Calgary. He said,
"Oh its between the lawyers." I said,
yah, I guess so." He asked how things
were progressing. I said, "I don't know."
He said he would see what he could do.

I receive a letter in the mail from the
Buyer's Chatham lawyer. I noted the
lawyer tried to send the letter by fax
on Friday, but I didn't receive it. I
have to be home to accept the fax
manually.

I think if the Buyer is willing to
forego the confidentiality clause, and
not add anything more to the Agreement
that would cause further delay (so it can
figures out how to get out of payments
to me for the purchase price and
expenses) we can get a settlement. But
the Buyer has to act in good faith.

The Buyer showed bad faith in including
the Purchase Price in the confidentiality
clause (among other things). Deleting the
Purchase Price did not show good faith
as the Buyer did not intitate the removal
on its own. The inclusion of the Purchase
Price in the confidentiality clause was
was no mistake.

It doesn't make sense to me that the
Buyer acted in bad faith in including
the Purchase Price but acted in good
faith in including the Expenses. Since
both the Purchase Price and Expenses
appeared together in the Confidentiality
clause, it seem to me that one taints the
other. If the Purchase Price was included
in bad faith, then the Expenses was
included in bad faith too. Removing the
Purchase Price from the clause doesn't
remove the stench. It still stinks.

The Buyer is insisting that the
Confidentiality clause for the Expenses
must be included in the Agreement or
it will not sign the Agreement. If the
Buyer was acting in good faith it
would delete the clause and not use it
as an excuse not to reach a settlement.

My position on the confidentiality
clause is not new to the Buyer. I
reiterated again in my latest letter
in response, that I would not sign
an Agreement if there is a confidentiality
clause.

The Buyer is no longer concerned about
insurance. The lawyer wrote: :It
appears that your suggestion in paragraph
7 is a good one; that being Closing can
occur 60 days after the Agreement is signed
and that allows us to conduct proper
searches and eliminate any insurance
concerns."

Home Insurance - Corporate Buyer First Payee?

I see Habitat for Humanity is
next door again. It's kind of
ironic that the Buyer is helping
to build homes for the needy
while at the same time angling
to deliberately destroy my
property. It would seem to
me that deliberate destruction
of my property would be a
crime. I would also think
collecting insurance as a first
payee on property it deliberately
destroyed would be a crime too.

Did I mention that the corporate
Buyer wanted me to add it to my
insurance policy as a first payee,
if I were to remain in the house
after the closing date. The closing
date is the the date I would receive
the cashier's cheques from the Buyer
and the Buyer would receive the Deed
to the house in exchange, which it
would then register with the Ontario
Land and the also the date the Buyer
registers the Deed with the Ontario
Land Registry (OLR).

And, "No', the Deed shouldn't be
registered with OLR before the
closing date because, the Buyer
is falsely claiming that it paid
x amount for the property when in
fact it has not paid for the property.
The Seller doesn't receive funds
until the closing date indicated
in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale.


It struck me as odd that a
corporation would want to be added
to my home insurance policy as first
payee on property that its itching
to destroy. Of course I would never
never add the Buyer to my home insurance
policy.

I decided to take a cab to work
On the way I had the cab
driver stop in front of the house at the
end of Cadillac Street. I was curious
which company was using the house
as offices. It was this house that
the directive to the WUC workers to shut
off the hydro came from. I was just going
to walk in and ask the first person I saw
the name of the company. I didn't have
to ask anyone. Posted on the door was a
notice indicating the name of the company
and hours of operation. It read,
East Windsor Cogeneration Centre.

See post below titled, 'Scapegoats: setting up
workers to take the blame?'

Scapegoats: setting up workers to take the blame?

Shortly after 9:00 a.m., two WUC
(Windsor Utilities Commission)
workers on property. I over hear
one say to the other, "there's
two meters.". I think nothing of
it. About an hour or so later I hear
the beeping sound of a vehicle
reversing. It's the WUC van leaving
the property.

Then around 10:30 a.m. I hear what
sounds like a big truck pull up to
the property.I look out my sliding
door window and there's a WUC worker
(different workers)looking directly
at me. He say's to his partner not
in my view, "there's someone here".
He had a puzzled look on face as
I'm sure I did too. I thought,
"What is going on here?" I give him
the hand gesture for, "Just a minute."
I get dressed, throw my coat on and
head outside.

The worker has a clip board in his
hand and I noticed the attached document
heading, "DEMOLITION". I notice the
address too. 2929 Riverside Drive
East, the house attached to mine.

The worker said he thought it was a
separate house. I didn't verbalize it,
but I thought it, "Yah, that's what
they wanted you to think too." The
WUC workers were not told that the
address provided to them was a semi-
detached and that someone still lived
in one of the houses. They were
directed by someone up the street
to shut the hydro off.

The worker said that there must have
been some confusion. He said if they
shut the hydro off, it would shut my
hydo off too. He said they wouldn't do
it. He said, "You're moving." I said,
"No. My house hasn't sold yet."
He said again and with even more certainty,
"We're not shutting the hydro off.
We'll have to go talk to him up the street."
I asked if it was someone from AECON.
He said, "No." He didn't reveal who it was.


Since they don't want to pay me for my
property, just have their attached property
demolished, destroying my property and
everything I own at the same time. The
kill two birds with one stone philosophy.
Then claim they didn't know anything about
it. They'd chalk it up to miscommunication
and blame those they setup to take the
fall - the workers.

EDIT IN

Okay, I hearing banging next door. It's
Habitat for Humanity. Their truck
is parked in the driveway. Not a good
sign.

I responded to EWCP's letter I received
on December 24th,2007, I haven't heard a
word. Perhaps, WUC and Habitat for Humanity
appearance is their response.

I'm wondering if I should contact my
insurance company.

Fraud Made Easy: Electronic Registration

There's been no response to my letter
of December 15th, 2007, including
from lawyer#1. See copy of letter
below in post titled, "A Possible
Solution".

Since I haven't heard not a peep
from anyone , perhaps my suggestions
doesn't fit with the Buyer's objective.

If you want the property but you
don't want to pay for it, you sure
in the hell are not going to agree
to pay by cashier's cheque, now are
you? Cashier's cheque guarantees
payment to the Seller (Unless provided
with a fraudulent cashier's cheque).
Certified cheques are standard in real
estate transactions, but can be cancelled.
If the other party has shown a
consistent pattern of dishonest
and deceptive behaviour, then you
have every reason to believe
that more likely than not,
dishonest and deceptive tactics will
be utiized to screw you out of your
money and your property. That's the
way I see it. I don't trust that the
Buyer will suddenly change it's ways
and pay me for my property.

To help prevent a transfer of ownership
of property before the closing date, the
Seller should be required to sign two
separate Acknowledgment and Direction
and signed at different times in the
process. The first Acknowledgement
and Direction would be signed at the
onset of the process providing the
Seller's lawyer with authority to
prepare the necessary documents for
closing. The second Acknowledgment
and Direction would be signed by the
Seller on the closing date providing
the Seller's lawyer with authorization
to provided the prepared Deed to the
Buyer.

As it is, the Seller signs only
one Acknowledgment and Direction,
leaving the corporate buyer with
plenty of room to influence and
manipulate. Oh I'm sure there will be
those that will say, "Well I didn't
have any problems. They paid me."
If the property was transferred before
the closing date, then you were paid
because the Buyer chose to pay you, not
because the Buyer believed it had to.
The Buyer had the option not to pay
too, since it already owned the property.
For what other reason would a Buyer want
ownership before the closing date but to
provide it with the option not to pay.

If the transfer occur on the
date you receive the funds (the closing
date), then the Buyer didn't have a
choice. No money, no Deed.

EDIT IN

It's Christmas Eve and I still had
some errands to run before the stores
closed. So after I finished my post
above, I quickly left my computer and
put my coat on to leave. I open my front
door, step out onto my front step and
notice flyers sticking out of my mailbox.
I pull them out of the box and I notice
that I have mail too. I hurriedly sort
through the mail and Voila, there it is,
a letter from the Buyer's lawyer. I thought
to myself, "Speak of the Devil!". I decide
I'll read it when I get back. If it's not
good news I don't want to think about while
I'm Christmas shopping. And besides I was
concerned about the stores closing early.

Obviously I'm home now and I've read the
letter. Well actually there's two letters.
One brief letter addressed to myself
acknowledging receipt of my last two
correspondences. And a copy of letter sent
by the Buyer's lawyer to lawyer#1 in response
to my December 15th letter to lawyer#1. I
provided copies to the Buyer's lawyers.

The Buyer is willing to make payments by
cashier's cheque. That's good. However,
there's a couple of items that I requested
in my December 15th, letter that apparently
can't be done due to " legal protocol".
Yah... whatever. I'm sure that "legal protocol"
also dictates that ownership cannot be
transferred before the closing date. I suppose
I'll have to trust lawyer#1 to follow
"legal protocol" in that respect, especially
if I am to receive the cashier's cheques for
the purchase price and expenses.

The Buyer still wants the expenses kept
under wraps for one year. I have a problem
with that. I don't trust the Buyer (Buyer's
representatives etc.) to not reveal the expenses
itself, then falsely accuse me of breaching the
confidentialty clause. The Buyer could use the
confidentialty clause to harass me via a lawsuit
for breach of contract. I don'twant nothing to
do with the confidentialty clause.

Keep in mind that had I not pointed out that
the purchase price is made public on the closing
date, the Buyer would have continued to require
that I keep the purchase price confidential
for one year, while the Buyer itself would
have revealed the purchase price.

The Buyer doesn't keep the purchase price
confidential because it registers the Deed
with the Ontario Land Registry on the closing
date making the purchase price public. So how
would the Buyer enforce confidentialty of the
purchase price on the Seller? Launch a lawsuit
against the Seller for breach of contract for
something it caused when it registered the Deed
- revelation of the purchase price. I don't see
the expenses being any different. Just like
the purchase price, I believe that the Buyer
will reveal the expenses. The confidentialty
clause only applies to the Seller.

I'll have 60 days from the closing date to
vacate the premises. I'll be required to pay
all expenses, heat, water, light and insurance.
No rent. The only issue I have with the
expenses is the house insurance. I have a
problem paying house insurance on house I no
longer own. It would seem to me that once
ownership has transferred to the Buyer, that
it's the Buyer's responsibilty as the owner
of the property to acquire house insurance.
I'd be a tenant at that point and the
Buyer as the owner would be a landlord.
Tenants don't pay house insurance.

I'm glad to have receive the letter. But
the more I think about it, the more
I wonder," Does a leopard change its spots?"


See Post below titled, "A Possible Solution"

A Possible Solution

Click letter to enlarge. We'll
see if this letter leads to a
settlement or more of the same
rubbish.

Title Search On Adjacent Property

I recently had a title search done on
the adjacent property (mine too. I'm
named as the owner of my property). East
Windsor Cogeneration Properties only
paid $144,100 for my former neighbour's
home. And the purchase price includes
a top up of 10%. Well actually it is
the appraisal plus 10%. I was offered
slightly less.

What has me perplexed is the purchased
price is slightly more than what the first
owners of the properties paid in 1991. In
fact without the 10% top up, the price is
less than what the first owners paid in 1991.
I belive they paid 137,500. I'll have to check
the number, but I do know it's more. 1991, is
16 years ago. What's wrong with this picture?

Note that the transfer of ownership occurred
on October 24, 2007. If you've read my post of
November 12th, 2007 titled, "Next Door
Neighbour Moved?" I wrote about the arrival of
a moving truck. Also if you've read my September
12th, 2007 post titled, "East Windsor Cogeneration
LP -Half a House?" I wrote about the meeting
I had with EWCC's Buckingham agent in which
he informed me he had already made a deal
with my former neighbour.

This is just suppostion of course, but I think
that my former neighbour reached a settlement on
Wednesday, September 12th, 2007, the same day
I met with the agent. September 12th to November
12th, is 60 days. If I'm correct, then the
transfer of ownership of the property occurred
the week before the closing date of November 12th.
Again, I'm just speculating. I could be wrong.
But then again, I could be right. I wonder
when the funds were received? Was it October
24th, 2007 the date EWCP became the new owner
of the property or was it a later date like November
12th, 2007, the date the moving truck arrived.

As you can see from the document the purchase
price, the name of the old owner, new owner,
the date of the transfer of ownership is public
information. Click on image to enlarge.

Also scroll down to my post titled, "Confidentialty
- Clause Still Here" click on image and read
the Confidentiality clause. Also read the Assignment
clause.

Also see November 7th, 2007 post tilted, "The
Agreement- Unequal Grounds"