In Tang v. Zhang, 2013 BCCA 52, Newbury J.A. resolved the apparent conflict between two earlier decisions dealing with the interpretation of “deposit clauses” in standard form contracts. She noted that where a buyer fails to complete the purchase as required (thus effectively repudiating the contract), and has paid a “deposit” that the contract states is to be forfeited to the seller “on account of damages”, the unsettled question was whether damages must be proven in order for the seller to retain the deposit.
"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.alexsei.com.