Long story short, my buyer didn't close the deal and made me extend the closing day to several months on their verbal promise they'll compensate me for all the living expenses till they close it. They didn't close ever, so we ended up selling it to another buyer at higher price than the previous one.
Now I'm in court with old buyer. This old buyer's agent told me at the court that because I ended up selling at a higher price to another buyer, which means I made profits. So the deposit contract the old buyer and I signed is not necessary anymore. They even want some of the deposit money back (it's being held at a trust fund company).
That logic is new to me. Is that reasonable? Just because, I ended up selling it to another buyer and a bigger price at later time, the documents I signed with previous "potential" buyer get nulled? I am confused. He said I won't win in court reclaiming that deposit money and the money the buyer previously verbally promised me.
Is that so?
Now I'm in court with old buyer. This old buyer's agent told me at the court that because I ended up selling at a higher price to another buyer, which means I made profits. So the deposit contract the old buyer and I signed is not necessary anymore. They even want some of the deposit money back (it's being held at a trust fund company).
That logic is new to me. Is that reasonable? Just because, I ended up selling it to another buyer and a bigger price at later time, the documents I signed with previous "potential" buyer get nulled? I am confused. He said I won't win in court reclaiming that deposit money and the money the buyer previously verbally promised me.
Is that so?