Bowen L.J., concurring, emphasized that the question of whether the buyer was entitled to the return of the deposit money must in each case be a question of the terms of the contract, citing Palmer v. Temple (1839) 9 Ad. & E. 508. His Lordship found that the contract at issue contained nothing that would “deprive the deposit ... of the character which it would bear if there were no special clause” and continued: We have therefore to consider what in ordinary parlance, and as used in an ordinary contract of sale, is the meaning which business persons would attach to the term “deposit”. Without going at length into the history ... it comes shortly to this, that a deposit, if nothing more is said about it, is, according to the ordinary interpretation of businessmen, a security for the completion of the purchase[.] [At 98.]
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.