The applicant sought a declaration of entitlement to a deposit paid by the respondent under a contract to purchase a new build home, and a direction for a trial on further damages.
The respondent refused to close, alleging misrepresentations regarding square footage and finish quality.
The court found no valid misrepresentations, enforcing the entire agreement clause against the respondent despite claims of limited English and alleged verbal assurances.
The court declared the applicant entitled to retain the $502,500 deposit, finding a 15% deposit not unconscionable.
However, the court dismissed the applicant's request for a trial on further damages, noting it was not sought in the initial application and would lead to inefficient bifurcation of proceedings.