Sale and purchase agreement — contract dispute — damages. The Judge determined that the agreement had been concluded and that alleged misrepresentations about the nature of the property were not made. The defendants were well aware the property was a cross-lease at the time they entered into the agreement. As per the contractual terms, the plaintiffs were able to recover the deposit of $60,000 as damages notwithstanding that the property was on-sold. Interest on that amount was granted, as well as costs and disbursements reasonably incurred. Judgment Date: 23 November 2016.