In Brief
A real estate buyer sued for possession of a row house promised by December 2008 but not delivered. After seeking possession as primary relief and refund as alternative in a 2011 consumer complaint, the buyer was awarded refund with 12% interest. The Supreme Court held that a buyer is not estopped from claiming refund despite praying for possession first, especially when seven years have passed without reasonable performance. Finding the contract one-sided (imposing 18% on buyer default but only savings bank rate on developer default), the Court modified the interest rate to 9% per annum, affirmed the refund order, and held that waiting indefinitely for possession is unreasonable.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.