Rules on Mortgage default, either foreclosure or power of sale, depends on different province. But this is a difference case from mortgage default. In the purchase agreement there should be a section about how the deposit will be treated after buyer default. Now the question is, who is the default party. Bdw was willing to close with petition, minto denied bdw request and put the house back on market.
The battle is about the deposit. Not easy to get it back. We wouldn't have been talking about this case if Minto would return BDW's deposit after selling the house to another buyer. Deposit, by definition, is to demonstrate the buyer's good faith to fulfil his promise to buy the subject property. In home purchase agreement, if the buyer is the default party, deposit will be forfeited by the seller (builder) as the remedy of liquidation demage the seller suffered. Even if the seller manages to sell the property at a higher price, i.e., the seller actually benefits from the buyer's default, the buyer may still not get his deposit back. There are plenty of such legal cases in Canada that can be searched. However, if the sales price is lower, then the seller may seek further remedy from the buyer in the court.
你老兄挺有法律知识，是不是跟BDW联系一下，研讨一下她的案子，看一看胜率如何。以我这个外行看来，BDW应该是赢面很大，如果不是稳操胜卷的话。我想M如此强硬有一个可能的原因是想恐吓BDW，让她知难而退。另外把M告上法庭，不一定要律师吧。象你这种具有法律知识的，如果有时间，认真准备，出庭一定不比一般的律师差。很多律师根本不认真研讨，准备客户的案子，只是走形式，除非你花很多的钱，律师才会认真对待。
there was a case in BC, a condo buyer buying a condo for $1.5m, put down good size of deposit to builder. then the condo price dropped before the condo is built, the buyer gave up on the deposit and didn't close the deal. builder sold that condo for $1.2m then turned around to sue the previous buyer for $300k damage. not sure what the final result is.
In the BC case, the buyer is an obvious default party. In BDW's case, I believe M is a default party because M failed to honor the purchase agreement.
大家不要以为打官司就一切就好办了。 lawyer这里对小客户更类似调解人，绝大多数情况是到不了上庭那一步。 除非BDW有钱有时间有精力，否则结果是minto多赔了点，但lawyer拿去不少，跟原来结果差不多。好点的lawyer会和当事人沟通，大致结果相差不大。
However, the amount of security, with this definition, must be reasonable. For example, 5k or 10K will be regarded as reasonable. This is the amount that the sellers usually will request at resell market. Minto will hardly build the case that the whole amount (60k) is for security purpose. They obviously used partial of the 60K as "prepaid" amount to fund their construction cost. By saying that, Minto most likely will refund at least partial of the 60K to the buyer even she is default, provided there is no other lost.
Not so sure. Because in the same contract, there is a clause allows builder to return the deposit plus interest and walk away in the case the builder cannot deliver the house.
