The appellants appealed a judgment ordering them to repay $120,000 to the respondents.
The parties had entered into a property sale agreement, and the appellants had borrowed $120,000 from the respondents, which was to be repaid through the closing of the sale.
When the sale did not close, the respondents sought return of the funds.
The application judge found the $120,000 was a loan, not a deposit, and ordered repayment.
The appellants argued the entire sum was a forfeited deposit and that the respondents failed to demonstrate readiness to complete the purchase.
The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment, finding the evidence clearly established the $120,000 was a loan to be repaid either through the sale or directly if the sale did not complete.