Does the purchase agreement say anything about your deposit in case of cancellation? Deos it include any merger clause? Something like "the parties agreed that the terms included will be final and no other extrinc terms will be recorded"?
The sales person orally told you that you could get your money back. This, in court, will be treated as parol evidence. Parol evidence is only admissible to prove fraud under statute of frauds or to prove invalidity of the agreement.
If your agreement contains a merger clause, then it will be viewed in court as a total integration so that no parol evidence can be introduced to vary, contradict, or supplement the agreement. If it doesnot, the best chance you can argue is that it is a partial integration so that parol evidence is allowed to supplement the agreement. That being said, however, if there is clause in the agreement in contradiction to what the sales person said regarding the deposit, then agreement prevails and the parol evidence is not allowed.
To my opinion the best chance you have is to raise misrepresentation to avoid the agreement. A misrepresentation will be basis for avoidance even the deveiving party has no intention to deceit. Parol evidence, however, is not relevant in misrepretation claim. What you need to do is to prove that 1) you did rely on the misrepresentation that in the event of cancellation you could get your money back, 2) a reasonable person would have considered the deposit material, and 3) your reliance on the misrepresentation is reasonable. The hardest thing to prove is the second one. The sales person could also say that what she told you was just an opinion which was predicting a future event. In that case,the opinion was immaterial. You on the other side, could argue that she had superior knowledge of that fact and made it false. Oeverall, she is the sales person and she should know the policy better. The result could go either way in court.
This is just an opinion regarding relevant court actions. Before resorting to court you could also try to contact the company to settle with them.
The sales person orally told you that you could get your money back. This, in court, will be treated as parol evidence. Parol evidence is only admissible to prove fraud under statute of frauds or to prove invalidity of the agreement.
If your agreement contains a merger clause, then it will be viewed in court as a total integration so that no parol evidence can be introduced to vary, contradict, or supplement the agreement. If it doesnot, the best chance you can argue is that it is a partial integration so that parol evidence is allowed to supplement the agreement. That being said, however, if there is clause in the agreement in contradiction to what the sales person said regarding the deposit, then agreement prevails and the parol evidence is not allowed.
To my opinion the best chance you have is to raise misrepresentation to avoid the agreement. A misrepresentation will be basis for avoidance even the deveiving party has no intention to deceit. Parol evidence, however, is not relevant in misrepretation claim. What you need to do is to prove that 1) you did rely on the misrepresentation that in the event of cancellation you could get your money back, 2) a reasonable person would have considered the deposit material, and 3) your reliance on the misrepresentation is reasonable. The hardest thing to prove is the second one. The sales person could also say that what she told you was just an opinion which was predicting a future event. In that case,the opinion was immaterial. You on the other side, could argue that she had superior knowledge of that fact and made it false. Oeverall, she is the sales person and she should know the policy better. The result could go either way in court.
This is just an opinion regarding relevant court actions. Before resorting to court you could also try to contact the company to settle with them.
选择“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
选择“don't run on pages on this domain”
