The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering him to return $41,743.15 paid by the respondent under a written agreement for a leasehold interest.
The respondent had defaulted on payments, prompting the appellant to cancel the contract and sell the interest to a third party.
The trial judge characterized the agreement as a purchase and sale without a forfeiture clause and ordered the return of the funds.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge committed an error of law by failing to consider the appellant's evidence that the contract was a 'rent to own' agreement where payments were non-refundable rent.
