What is the test for a court to rule that a party can seek damages from a third party for failing to pay a down payment of 10% on a mortgage?

We have previously noted that a court should not depart from its prior holdings "unless impelled by 'the most cogent reasons' " (Baker v. Lorillard, 4 N.Y. 257, 261). This standard is particularly apt in cases involving the legal effect of contractual relations. In fact, when contractual rights are at issue, "where it can reasonably be assumed that settled rules are necessary and necessarily relied upon, stability and adherence to precedent are generally more important than a better or even a 'correct' rule of law" (Matter of Eckart, 39 N.Y.2d 493, 500, 384 N.Y.S.2d 429, 436, 348 N.E.2d 905, 913). The rule permitting a party in default to seek restitution for part performance has much to commend it in its general applications. But as applied to real estate down payments approximating 10% it does not appear to offer a better or more workable rule than the long-established

Page 512