Toronto Rail Deck Development | 239.43m | 72s | LIUNA | Sweeny &Co

[Northern Light]

That doesn't change the fact that Diamond Schmitt, not Henriquez, are doing that project. So what is the point of putting Henriquez name in the approval?

My point is what if Gehry dies? Or the firm goes bust? Also, Frank Gehry (the person) is not 'designing' your unit or even your building, so again, what does his inclusion in an approval achieve? Also, again, it's not even Gehry doing Forma: it was Quadrangle and is now Adamson.

What is 'adhere'? Who controls that? To what degree is 'adherence' achieved?

Right because when you buy a packaged product, it's one of thousands or millions of identical copies of that product. Conversely, every single building is custom. If every pencil case or blender or Hot Wheels was a one-off custom product, you'd far more variation in its construction / assembly / sale.

I think we will simply have to disagree on this.

I really don't see any particular challenge.

If I buy a painting by artist 'x', I get a painting, by artist 'x' or I get my money back; and the picture must look like whatever I agreed to, either as an image, a written description, or both. I see no difficulty in this.

It's not my problem if the artist dies, it's not my problem if the supplier of blue paint goes bankrupt, if you can't deliver what you sold me, I get my money back.

That is the essential principle of every legal contract in law, it's referred to as the 'meeting of the minds'. (legal latin: Consensus Ad Idem )

Put simply the purchaser and seller must agree on what is being bought/sold and for what price. The seller cannot unilaterally change a material element of the item being sold, anymore than a buyer can change the currency of the transaction or the amount payable.

It's simply absurd to me that that is the legal standard for the vast majority of contracts and sales in Canada; and that it somehow ought not to apply to the single most expensive purchase most Canadians will ever make in their lifetime.

 

[Northern Light]

The City codified a requirement for Mirvish-Gehry to be designed by Gehry, not to be built exactly as approved. The project has actually changed substantially since it was approved.

I'm proposing to allow a municipality to impose conditions of approval in relation to design, I am not proposing to mandate the municipality to impose said conditions.

One needn't specify every detail; but one might choose to specify certain details.

If a building is required to complement a heritage property adjacent to it, and it is agreed that it will be of a particular colour or material, that can be specified. But it doesn't have to be.

Even then, the requirement for the building to be designed by a specific architect has no real legal standing and only made it into the by-law because Mirvish agreed not to fight it. If Great Gulf had wanted to switch architects they likely could have easily gone to the OLT to have it struck out.

Again, I'm arguing for Amending the Planning Act to give force to such a requirement, I am not suggesting that authority exists today.

 

[ProjectEnd]

I think we will simply have to disagree on this.

Sounds like it, and that's fair. Why else are we all here?

I really don't see any particularly challenge.

If I buy a painting by artist 'x', I get a painting, by artist 'x' or I get my money back; and the picture must look like whatever I agreed to, either as an image, a written description, or both. I see no difficulty in this.

Unless you are commissioning an artist to paint a painting, you are purchasing something that already exists. In a presale condo, you're purchasing a future based on a 2D plan covered in 'artists impression' and 'results may vary' disclaimers.

It's not my problem if the artist dies, it's not my problem if the supplier of blue paint goes bankrupt, if you can't deliver what you sold me, I get my money back.

But if the artist is dead, the painting still exists (again, unless you were having it commissioned) so you can still purchase that object.

That is the essential principle of every legal contract in law, it's referred to as the 'meeting of the minds'. (legal latin: Consensus Ad Idem )

Put simply the purchaser and seller must agree on what is being bought/sold and for what price. The seller cannot unilaterally change a material element of the item being sold, anymore than a buyer can change the currency of the transaction or the amount payable.

Yes, and that's all currently spelled out in your APS.

It's simply absurd to me that that is the legal standard for the vast majority of contracts and sales in Canada; and that it somehow ought not to apply to the single most expensive purchase most Canadians will ever make in their lifetime.

I am a developer and I would never buy a presale condo. Take from that what you will...

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

...I think Mr. 42 could find a new revenue for this site if he where to host paid for 5 minute arguing sessions among the regulars here.

 

[Northern Light]

...I think Mr. 42 could find a new revenue for this site if he where to host paid for 5 minute arguing sessions among the regulars here.

Debating; lively discussions; not arguing. LOL

Also, I want a cut, LOL

 

[evandyk]

There are actually plenty of ways to build uncertainty into contracts, and it's fairly common. Especially contracts where performance will happen a long time in the future. And you could easily specify that the potential changes can be unilateral, though that makes the contract less attractive to enter into obviously.

 

[evandyk]

I am a developer and I would never buy a presale condo. Take from that what you will...

I'm a lawyer, and would never sign a contract that has the type of engineered flexibility that a presale condo normally has. Take from that what you will...

Edit to add: "unilateral flexibility". You don't have any as the purchaser...

 

[Northern Light]

There are actually plenty of ways to build uncertainty into contracts, and it's fairly common. Especially contracts where performance will happen a long time in the future. And you could easily specify that the potential changes can be unilateral, though that makes the contract less attractive to enter into obviously.

A key though is that the signee to the contract should have a clear understanding of what that flexibility means.

It's an interesting curiosity that many don't employ the services of either a lawyer or a real estate pro in purchasing a pre-sale condo, which would help address that.

Still, I don't think one can demonstrate 'a meeting of the minds in court' w/o some measure of evidence that the terms were in the APS, but moreso that they were in layman's language and/or clearly explained to the purchaser.

To some extent Caveat Emptor may apply; but there are limitations on that.

 

[evandyk]

A key though is that the signee to the contract should have a clear understanding of what that flexibility means.

It's an interesting curiosity that many don't employ the services of either a lawyer or a real estate pro in purchasing a pre-sale condo, which would help address that.

Still, I don't think one can demonstrate 'a meeting of the minds in court' w/o some measure of evidence that the terms were in APS, but moreso that they were in layman's language and/or clearly explained to the purchaser.

To some extent Caveat Emptor may apply; but there are limitations on that.

Yeah, my expertise is in a different area, and this particular one is one where certain entities have huge advantages in bargaining power, which raises issues not within my normal bailliwick. But it's not extremely unusual to have these issues, what is unusual is that normal people are spending so much money on it.

 

[GenerationLee]

Kill this thing with fire!


This is one of my least favourite proposals in the city at the moment.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

To some extent Caveat Emptor may apply; but there are limitations on that.

Means "buyer beware" in case folks where wondering about that.

(Emphasis mine. )

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Instead of codifying the architect - codify the end product and deny permits that deviate significantly from proposed designs for which they get approvals for. Don't let cheapening slip away.

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

Instead of codifying the architect - codify the end product and deny permits that deviate significantly from proposed designs for which they get approvals for. Don't let cheapening slip away.

AoD

I'm fine w/this from a City/Proponent point-of-view; though from a buyer-seller point of view, if the name of the architect is used to inflate the price, I can't see how that would not a logical thing to have in the contract, at least from the buyer's perspective.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Anyways, can't say I am the slightest bit surprised - AFAIK the proponent has brought nothing on the table that would suggest taking them and their Safdie proposal seriously - execept Safdie himself.

AoD

 

[ProjectEnd]

The Safdie version of this - in the way it was depicted at least - was never going to be built. They were selling a fantasy and anyone with any knowledge of construction could see the inherent impossibilities with regard to building that in Toronto.