The plaintiffs agreed to purchase a commercial property from the defendants, intending to use the entire space as a restaurant.
The plaintiffs refused to close the transaction after discovering zoning restrictions limited restaurant use to half the space.
They sued for the return of their deposit and damages, alleging the vendor made oral representations and a collateral agreement guaranteeing the zoning and promising to return the deposit if issues arose.
The vendor counterclaimed for breach of contract.
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, finding they did not reasonably rely on the vendor's representations and that the written agreement expressly excluded collateral agreements.
The vendor's counterclaim was allowed, and damages were awarded based on the property's subsequent sale by the mortgagee.
