Damages are all reasonably foreseeable losses that naturally result from the failure to place the “innocent” party in the position it would have been in if the purchase was completed. The starting point is therefore the difference between the contract and the prices of the property, that is.dem the loss of earnings of the aggrieved party and other costs such as wasted legal fees or interest payable on a mortgage or bridge loan. The seller must credit the deposit received. There can be no “profit” element in the calculation of damages. Despite the best wishes of many people inspired by the extravagance of damages in the United States, there is no punitive damages. The facts are quite tortuous (and simplified here), but this is a dispute between Mr. Omar and Mr. El-Wakil over two agreements reached on the same day. The first was a commercial transfer agreement whereby Mr. Omar agreed to sell his Park West Cars car rental and Courier Associates to Visiontrust, a company controlled by Mr. El-Wakil, at a cost of $110,000. Although Mr. El-Wakil was not involved in the business transfer agreement, it included an agreement for a second agreement that Mr.
El-Wakil would sell property in London NW11 for $350,000.00. USD 110,000.00 was to be paid by Mr. Omar when the second agreement was exchanged with the balance of the purchase price due once completed. Completion is expected to take place either on April 22, 1992, or 14 days after Mr. Omar informed Mr. El-Wakil that he was prepared to conclude “on the basis of the later date.” This section is intended to weaken the seller`s right to keep the deposit where it would be “unacceptable.” Experts disagree on how the Court should exercise its full assessment. However, it was agreed that the starting point was the assumption that the purchaser agreed to pay a bond as a service loan, knowing full well that he would lose his deposit if he did not comply with his contractual obligations. The discretion of the Court of Justice must therefore be used sparingly. It is very common for land contracts to contain a clause that the buyer must pay a deposit and that the surety will expire if the buyer does not close the transaction. Such a clause is indeed a punitive clause and not a liquidation clause.
This is because deposits are often very large – 10% of the purchase price is not unusual – and the losses incurred by the disappointed seller are often not so large. (a) If the doctrine of sanction has undermined the jurisdiction of the courts to grant forfeiture, the logical consequence would be that the withholding of a deposit would exclude any new claim for compensation.