The defendant argues that the GST clause in the final contract of purchase and sale is ambiguous and should be interpreted in a manner that is against the plaintiffs’ interest, i.e. that it refers to GST as contemplated by the defendant. The rule as stated by Pearlman J. in Karim v. Seo, 2010 BCSC 746 at para. 17 is:
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.