In response to the argument that damages could not have been sought until their full extent was known, the defendant has provided pleadings and reasons for judgment in a similar type of proceeding, Cassidy v. Smith. In that case the plaintiff sought in the same action to recover the deposit and to receive damages as the result of a collapsed real estate deal. Forfeiture of the deposit and liability for damages were determined pursuant to a Rule 18A application and then the amount of damages was assessed in a subsequent hearing. This, says the defendant, would have been the proper way for the plaintiff to proceed. Discussion
"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.