PURCHASE OF A PROPERTY.

Evening Post, Volume LXXV, Issue 29, 4 February 1908, Page 7

PURCHASE OF A PROPERTY.

A DEPOSIT SUCCESSFULLY SUED FOR. Dr. M' Arthur, S.M., this molfhing delivered judgment in the easo of Wilson and another v. Powell. Plaintiff claimed to recover from defendant the sum of £25, being the amount of a deposit paid by plaintiff to defendant in respect of a contract which the defenttant refused to complete. The plaintiffs purchased a; property from defendant on the 7th August, 1907, for £550, through Messrs. Thomson and Brown. There was supposed to ba a mortgage of £290, and the contract was to be completed on 9t hSeptember. The contract was not completed, and on the 12th of the same month the defendant wrote to Thomson and Brown, requesting them tocomplete the contract on or before 17th September, or otherwise the contract would be cancelled. On 18th September defendant cancelled the contract. The contract had not been completed, and the defendant retained the property and deposits, refusing to'complete on terms proposed by plaintiffs. At this point the judgment states : If a purchaser, after paying a deposit, unjustifiably repudia;,es the contract, or if tho contract in any other way goes off through the purchaser's fault, tho vendor is entitled to retain the deposit. Thus when a purchaser of a revision had by delay lost lus right to specific performance, but had not done anything amounting to a repudiation of the contract, he was entitled to enforce the usual lien for a deposit which he had paid._ The judgment did not consider that it had been proved that there were acts of the purchasers which would make their conduct amount to a repudiation of the contract on their part. The letter of rescission should have been directed to the plaintiff. The plaintiffs were not guilty ot unreasonable or unnecessary delay to the contract j also the notice was not, reasonable,. and failed in engrafting time into the essence of the contract. The plaintiffs were therefore entitled to the return of their deposit. Judgment was given for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed, and costs amounting to £5 16s.