Toronto’s pre-construction condo market has left thousands of buyers in an impossible position. They signed agreements of purchase and sale years ago when prices were rising. Construction was delayed. The market fell sharply. Now closing day is arriving, and the bank will only lend against today’s lower appraised value, not the price written into the contract. The gap between what the bank will lend and what the developer demands can be $100,000 or more, money that many buyers simply do not have.
A recent CTV News report put a face to the problem: a buyer who purchased a pre-construction condo in 2018 for roughly $650,000. After COVID-related delays pushed back construction, the unit now appraises at around $500,000. The bank will lend 80 per cent of that new value, leaving a financing shortfall of approximately $120,000. The developer, however, still expects the original balance.
For buyers in this situation, the most urgent question is whether there is a legitimate legal way out of the agreement, one that does not result in losing the entire deposit or being sued for the developer’s loss. The answer depends on the specific terms of the agreement and the circumstances of the project. This post explains the main legal exits that may be available to a pre-construction condo buyer in Ontario, and what each one requires.
Ontario courts have recognized four legally acceptable justifications for a purchaser refusing to close a real estate transaction: non-satisfaction of a condition precedent; breach of a fundamental promise by the developer; a developer’s failure to convey good title; and misrepresentation, combined with the other elements required for equitable rescission. Everything that follows maps onto one of these categories.
Understanding the Agreement You Signed
A pre-construction condominium agreement of purchase and sale is a binding contract. If you signed it and the developer has met all of its obligations, you are legally required to close. If you refuse, the developer can keep your deposit and sue you for any additional losses caused by your failure to complete, including the difference between your contract price and whatever the developer eventually sells the unit for to someone else.
This is what “consequences” means in this context. In a falling market, where the developer resells your unit for less than your original contract price, you could owe the developer money on top of losing your deposit. That is the risk buyers who simply walk away are taking.
The goal of this post is to identify situations where a buyer may be able to exit the agreement lawfully, recovering the deposit and avoiding any claim by the developer.
Exit 1: The 10-Day Cooling-Off Period (Section 73 of the Condominium Act)
Ontario law gives every purchaser of a pre-construction condominium unit an unconditional right to walk away from the agreement within 10 days of receiving certain documents. This right comes from section 73 of the Condominium Act, 1998.
Specifically, the 10-day clock starts running from the date you receive all three of the following, whichever arrives latest: the disclosure statement, the Residential Condominium Buyers’ Guide, and an executed copy of the agreement of purchase and sale. Within that 10-day window, you can rescind the agreement for any reason or no reason at all, simply by sending written notice to the developer. Your full deposit must be returned.
For buyers who signed their agreements in 2018 or earlier, this window has long since closed. This exit is only relevant if you are looking at a new pre-construction agreement right now and are having second thoughts.
Exit 2: If the Developer Never Properly Delivered the Disclosure Statement or Condo Guide
This exit is less well known but potentially very powerful. Under section 72(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, a buyer is not bound by the agreement of purchase and sale until the developer has delivered both the disclosure statement and the Residential Condominium Buyers’ Guide. If either was not properly delivered, the 10-day cooling-off period in section 73 never starts running. More importantly, the agreement itself is not binding on the buyer.
This means that if you never received a proper disclosure statement, or if what the developer gave you was so incomplete, incoherent, or internally inconsistent that it did not satisfy the statutory requirements, you may be able to rescind the agreement at any time before you receive a deed or transfer of the unit. Courts apply an objective standard in assessing disclosure adequacy: the question is what a reasonable person in an Ontario community would think about its sufficiency, given that buyers are entitled to know what the terms of the deal are.
A document that fails to clearly set out the key terms of the agreement, contains irreconcilable inconsistencies, or omits material information required under the Condominium Act, 1998 may not qualify as a valid disclosure statement at all. If that is the case, the 10-day clock never started, and your right to rescind has not expired.
This is a fact-specific analysis that requires careful comparison of what the developer delivered against the statutory requirements. If you suspect the disclosure package you received was deficient, this is worth examining with a lawyer immediately.
Exit 3: The Material Change Right (Section 74 of the Condominium Act)
This is the most frequently litigated exit in falling condo markets, and it is also the most misunderstood.
Section 74 of the Condominium Act, 1998 requires a developer to deliver an amended disclosure statement to purchasers whenever there is a “material change” to the project. Upon receiving that amended disclosure, a purchaser has a further 10 days to rescind the agreement and recover the deposit.
The critical question is what counts as a “material change.” The leading case on this point is Abdool v. Somerset Place Developments of Georgetown Ltd., decided by the Ontario Court of Appeal, which established that the test is an objective one: would a reasonable purchaser, knowing of the change at the time the agreement was first signed, have decided not to proceed? It is not enough that you personally would have changed your mind. A reasonable purchaser generally must have felt the same way.
Courts have applied this test carefully. In Gallow v. HPH (Broadview) Ltd., the court found that a change during construction which eliminated a loft space from the floor plan was a material change, entitling the purchaser to rescind. In Ram v. Talon International Inc., common expenses disclosed in the statement of adjustments were approximately 40 per cent higher than the amount promised at the deal-signing stage. The court treated this as a potential material change, and when the developer failed to deliver a revised disclosure statement and then went silent for months, the deal was found to be at an end after the original closing date lapsed. In Brookfield Residential (Ontario) Ltd. v. Chen, however, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that the developer’s failure to complete a parkette and entry/exit gates was not a material change. A reasonable purchaser would not have walked away from a condominium purchase over an incomplete parkette.
The one thing that courts have consistently rejected as a material change is a drop in the market value of condominiums generally. The fact that your unit is now worth less than you paid for it is not a material change within the meaning of section 74. That is a market risk that purchasers are assumed to accept when they sign a pre-construction agreement.
A buyer who has already communicated, through legal correspondence or otherwise, that they cannot close the deal for financial reasons risks being found to have committed an anticipatory breach of contract. If you then send a rescission notice under section 74 for a purported material change, a court may treat that notice as an attempt to escape a contract you had already repudiated for economic reasons, rather than as a genuine exercise of your consumer protection rights under the Condominium Act, 1998. Do not take any steps in connection with your agreement, including signaling inability to close, without first obtaining legal advice.
That said, if there have been genuine changes to the project, such as changes to floor plans, building design, amenities described in the original disclosure statement, the number of units in the project, or other physical characteristics of what you are purchasing, those changes may qualify. If the developer issued any amended disclosure statements during construction, you should review them carefully with a lawyer to assess whether the changes described in those notices were material enough to trigger your rescission right.
Even if a material change occurred, the 10-day window to rescind runs from the date you received the amended disclosure. If you received an amendment months ago and took no steps to rescind, that right may be lost. Acting quickly is essential. Contact a lawyer as soon as you identify a potential material change.
Exit 4: Tarion Delayed Closing Rights
Every agreement for the purchase of a new condominium in Ontario is required to include a Tarion Addendum. That Addendum contains a detailed set of rules about closing dates and what happens when the developer cannot meet them.
The Addendum requires the developer to specify closing dates in a Statement of Critical Dates. Depending on whether the agreement uses a firm or tentative closing date structure, the developer has a defined path to extend closing dates, but that path has limits. If the developer sets a firm closing date and the transaction does not close within 365 days of that date (the “Outside Closing Date”), the purchaser may elect to terminate the agreement. To exercise this right, the purchaser must give notice of termination within 30 days after the Outside Closing Date.
For buyers whose closings have been significantly delayed beyond the dates set out in the Addendum, this is an important option to review.
There is, however, a significant exception: unavoidable delay. The Addendum permits developers to extend closing dates where delays were caused by events beyond the developer’s reasonable control, including strikes, fire, and pandemics. Many developers gave notices of unavoidable delay during COVID-19, which entitled them to extend critical dates by the period of the delay. If the developer gave proper and timely notice of unavoidable delay, those extended dates become the relevant dates for calculating whether the Outside Closing Date has passed.
Whether the unavoidable delay notices given by your developer were properly made, and whether the extensions they claimed are valid, is a factual and legal question that requires careful review of the notices sent to you during construction. Not every delay notice is proper. Developers sometimes fail to give notice within the required 10-day window after the delaying event occurs, or claim delays that do not qualify. If the developer’s delay notices were defective, the extended closing dates may not be valid, which could mean the Outside Closing Date has already passed and your right to terminate was triggered.
If the Outside Closing Date has passed and the developer did not properly follow the Addendum rules, you may have the right to terminate and recover your deposit, plus delayed closing compensation of $150 per day for living costs, up to a maximum of $7,500.
Exit 5: Early Termination Conditions
The Tarion Addendum also requires every new condominium agreement to contain what are called “Early Termination Conditions.” These are conditions that must be satisfied (or waived, in the case of conditions that are waivable) before the transaction can close.
Some of these conditions are non-waivable: they are for the benefit of both the buyer and the developer, and if they are not satisfied, the agreement terminates automatically. Examples include changes to governmental development plans or zoning by-laws, and conditions relating to water or sewage approvals. The developer is required to give written notice within five business days after the date specified for satisfaction of the condition, either confirming satisfaction or confirming that the condition was not satisfied and that the agreement is terminated as a result. If the developer fails to give that notice on time, the condition is deemed not satisfied and the agreement terminates by operation of law.
Other conditions are waivable, but only by the developer. These include conditions relating to whether the purchaser has adequate financial resources to complete the transaction. If the developer does not give proper notice of satisfaction or waiver of a waivable condition by the required date, the condition is deemed waived and the agreement continues.
The practical significance for distressed buyers is this: if the developer failed to properly satisfy or give notice in relation to a non-waivable early termination condition, the agreement may have already terminated without anyone noticing. A careful review of the Addendum, the conditions listed in it, and the developer’s compliance with the notice requirements may reveal that the agreement is no longer in force.
Exit 6: A Financing Condition in the Agreement
Many pre-construction condo agreements are sold without financing conditions. Developers typically refuse to include them, because a financing condition allows a buyer to exit the agreement if financing cannot be obtained. That is not in the developer’s interest in a pre-sales environment.
However, some agreements do include a financing condition, particularly where it was negotiated at the time of signing. If your agreement contains a condition requiring you to obtain satisfactory mortgage financing, and you are genuinely unable to obtain financing at the amount needed to close, that condition may entitle you to terminate the agreement.
A financing condition that has not been waived and cannot be satisfied operates to allow the agreement to terminate without any obligation to complete. The condition is generally considered to be for the sole benefit of the purchaser, meaning you can waive it and proceed to close without financing, but you cannot be forced to waive it if you genuinely cannot secure the required funds.
The key words here are “genuinely unable.” If you simply choose not to apply for financing, or if you could obtain financing but at terms you find unfavourable, the condition may not apply. The obligation to make reasonable efforts to satisfy a financing condition rests with the purchaser, and courts will scrutinize whether those efforts were genuinely made.
If your agreement contains a financing condition, review its exact wording carefully with a lawyer. What does it require? What is the deadline for satisfying or waiving it? Did the deadline pass? These details determine whether the condition is still available to you.
Exit 7: Rescission for Misrepresentation
Where none of the statutory or contractual exits above apply, a buyer may have an equitable remedy of rescission if the agreement was induced by a misrepresentation made by the developer.
Rescission is a legal remedy that unwinds a contract entirely, as though it never existed. It is different from termination for breach. Termination ends the contract going forward but preserves rights and obligations that arose before the breach. Rescission erases the contract from the beginning. The legal effect is that each party is returned to the position they were in before the contract was made, which for a purchaser means recovery of the deposit.
To obtain rescission, the buyer must establish that: the developer made a representation of fact before the contract was signed; that representation was false; the buyer relied on it in deciding to enter the agreement; and the misrepresentation was material, meaning it was important enough to have influenced the buyer’s decision. Rescission is an equitable and discretionary remedy. Even where all elements are proven, a court may decline to order it in appropriate circumstances.
Does a Drop in Market Value Support Rescission?
The direct answer is no. A market-driven drop in the appraised value of a pre-construction condo unit, even a severe one, is not a misrepresentation by the developer. The developer made no false statement of fact about the unit’s future market value. Buyers accept market risk when they sign a pre-construction agreement. The fact that the bank now appraises the unit at $150,000 less than the contract price, or that the buyer cannot bridge the financing gap, does not by itself give rise to a rescission claim. Courts have consistently refused to treat external market conditions, however dramatic, as a substitute for actionable misrepresentation.
The inability to obtain financing is similarly not a trigger for equitable rescission unless the developer made specific representations about financing availability or the unit’s investment value that were false. The financing gap in the situations described in the CTV report arises from market deterioration, not from any false statement the developer made.
Three related doctrines might seem to offer a route out, but each has been squarely rejected by Ontario courts in the real estate context.
Frustration of contract discharges parties from future performance when an unforeseen supervening event makes performance radically different from what was contemplated. The Ontario Court of Appeal has held that a government announcement of a new tax did not frustrate a real estate agreement. More directly on point, Ontario courts have specifically held that economic downturns and a lack of financing are not tantamount to frustration of a real estate contract. A buyer who cannot close because the market moved against them has not been frustrated; they are simply facing an obligation they find difficult to perform.
Common mistake requires that both parties entered the contract under a fundamental shared error about the very nature of the subject matter, not a wrong prediction about future conditions. A buyer who signed in 2018 at $650,000 was not mistaken about anything. Both parties knew the price and the unit. That the market moved against the buyer in the years that followed is not a mistake; it is a risk that materialized.
Unconscionability looks at whether there was inequality of bargaining power and a grossly unfair bargain at the moment of contracting, not in light of what happened afterward. A contract signed at market price in 2018 was not unconsccionable when signed. Market deterioration since then cannot retroactively make the original bargain unconscionable.
When Rescission Before Closing Is Available
For buyers who have not yet closed, the question is whether the developer made any representations during the sale process that were false and that induced the buyer to enter the agreement. Common situations that sometimes support rescission claims include: representations about the project’s amenities or design that were not delivered as described; statements about expected occupancy dates that were materially incorrect and amounted to false statements of fact rather than estimates; or representations about the building’s specifications, floor plans, or features that were later changed in ways that were never properly disclosed.
Where a valid basis for rescission exists, acting before closing is critical for two reasons. First, it avoids the general bar on rescission after completion. Once a purchaser has taken conveyance and paid the price, rescission is available only in very narrow circumstances: fraud by the developer, or a fundamental error about the very nature of what was purchased. In the absence of fraud or that kind of fundamental error, completing the transaction forecloses rescission. Second, restitution is straightforwardly achievable before closing. No deed has been transferred and no property needs to be reconveyed. The developer returns the deposit and the buyer gives back any contractual rights. This is exactly the kind of clean restoration of the parties to their original positions that equitable rescission requires.
Affirmation and Laches: The Risks of Waiting
Two doctrines in particular can destroy a rescission claim that might otherwise have been available: affirmation and laches.
A buyer who discovers a potential misrepresentation and continues to perform under the agreement, including by paying interim occupancy fees or making deposit installments, risks affirming the contract. Affirmation bars rescission. Once you elect to treat the contract as binding after discovering the grounds for rescission, that election is generally final. Courts treat delay after discovery as evidence of affirmation: the longer you wait, the harder it becomes to argue you intended to rescind rather than to proceed.
Laches is the equitable doctrine that bars relief to a party who has delayed asserting their rights to a degree that makes it unjust to grant the remedy. It has two branches. Delay that bespeaks acquiescence in the contract, and delay that prejudices the developer by changing the position of the parties in a way that makes rescission an unreasonable outcome. In real estate cases, even a delay of a few years between discovery of a misrepresentation and the attempt to rescind has been held sufficient to bar the remedy.
For buyers already in interim occupancy who are aware of potential misrepresentations, the risk of affirmation and laches is immediate and real. If you are paying occupancy fees month after month while knowing of alleged deficiencies or changes to the project, you may be affirming the contract. The moment you suspect a misrepresentation that might ground a rescission claim, legal advice should be obtained without delay.
Pre-construction agreements also typically contain entire-agreement clauses and disclaimer language designed to limit the developer’s exposure to misrepresentation claims arising from sales office representations. Whether those clauses effectively bar a particular claim depends on the specific language and the nature of the representation. The assessment requires careful analysis of the agreement, the disclosure statement, the sales materials, and any oral or written representations made by the developer’s agents.
A drop in market value is not a misrepresentation and does not support equitable rescission. A rescission claim requires an identifiable false statement of fact that induced you to enter the agreement. Where such a claim exists, it must be pursued before closing and without delay after the misrepresentation is discovered. Buyers in interim occupancy who are aware of potential grounds for rescission and continue to pay occupancy fees risk affirming the contract and losing the right to rescind entirely.
Exit 8: Assignment
Assignment is not a legal termination of the agreement, but it is a way out of the obligation to close. Under the standard BILD form of agreement, the agreement may not be assigned to anyone other than the purchaser’s spouse without the developer’s written consent. Some builders have amended their standard forms to permit assignment with developer consent and payment of an assignment fee.
If the developer consents to an assignment, you can transfer your contractual rights to a new buyer. That new buyer steps into your shoes and closes the deal. You receive back (ideally) some or all of your deposit and are released from the obligation to close.
The challenges in the current market are significant. If condos are trading at below the contract price, a new buyer taking an assignment is paying more than market value. That makes assignments difficult to complete unless you are willing to discount your position. The developer’s consent is also not guaranteed, and some developers are refusing assignments or imposing conditions that make them impractical.
If assignment is available under your agreement and the developer is willing, it is worth exploring as a practical exit even if it results in some financial loss. It may be preferable to losing the entire deposit through default.
Also worth noting: where a disclosure statement contains materially false, deceptive, or misleading information, section 133 of the Condominium Act, 1998 gives the buyer an independent right to claim damages for any losses sustained in reliance on that false information, in addition to or as an alternative to rescission.
Your Deposit Is Protected by Law
Before turning to the consequences of default, it is worth addressing a concern that many buyers in financial distress share: whether their deposit is safe.
Under section 81 of the Condominium Act, 1998, every deposit paid on a pre-construction condominium agreement must be held in trust by the declarant’s solicitor or a prescribed trustee, in a separate trust account at a bank or qualifying financial institution. The developer has no access to those funds until closing or until prescribed security is delivered to the purchaser. Within 10 days of receiving a deposit payment, the developer must provide the purchaser with written evidence of compliance confirming where the funds are held and the trust account details.
This protection applies to every deposit installment you have paid, including deposits paid toward reservation of the right to enter into the agreement. If you have a valid basis to rescind or terminate and you exercise that right properly, those funds are held in trust and must be returned to you.
Section 82(7) of the Act adds a further entitlement: where the agreement is terminated and the purchaser is entitled to a return of money paid under it, the developer must pay interest at the prescribed rate on the returned funds. A successful rescission or termination yields your deposit back plus interest, not merely the principal.
The Developer Cannot Use Its Own Registration Delay Against You
One point worth flagging: section 79(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998 provides that despite anything in the agreement, a developer is not entitled to terminate the agreement simply because it failed to register the condominium declaration and description within a timeframe specified in the agreement, unless the purchaser consents in writing. A developer experiencing project difficulties cannot use its own delay in registering the condominium as leverage to exit the contract at the buyer’s expense.
What Happens If You Simply Walk Away
It is important to understand the consequences of defaulting on the agreement without a legitimate legal basis for doing so.
Under a standard pre-construction condo agreement, the developer is entitled to terminate the agreement if the purchaser fails to close, keep the deposit, and pursue additional remedies. In a falling market, the developer may resell the unit for less than your contract price. The difference between your contract price and the developer’s eventual resale price is called the “loss of bargain,” and you can be sued for it on top of losing the deposit. The developer can also claim extras and upgrades you ordered as part of the purchase.
If the developer ultimately resells the unit for more than your contract price, the loss of bargain damages would be nil, but you would still almost certainly forfeit the deposit.
Default is not a consequence-free option in most cases. The lawyers and mortgage brokers quoted in the CTV News article are right that walking away without legal justification exposes buyers to significant liability. It should be a last resort, not a first instinct.
Even where a deposit is forfeited following a default, a buyer is not entirely without recourse. Under section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act, a court may grant relief against penalties and forfeitures on just terms. To obtain relief from forfeiture, the buyer must establish two things: that the deposited amount was disproportionately large relative to the actual damages suffered by the developer, and that allowing the developer to retain the full amount would be unconsccionable in the circumstances. This is a high bar. The relevant time for assessing proportionality is when the contract was made, not the date of breach. Pre-construction deposits in the range of 15 to 20 per cent of the purchase price are generally treated as reasonable pre-estimates of damages and have not attracted relief from forfeiture in most cases. However, where the deposit is unusually large, the developer resells the unit quickly at a comparable price, and the buyer’s default caused minimal actual loss, there may be an argument worth advancing. Section 98 is not a route to recovering the deposit simply because closing became financially difficult; it requires a showing of unconscionability, which is an exceptional standard.
That said, there are practical considerations. A developer may choose not to pursue litigation because of cost, reputational concerns, or the difficulty of collecting from a buyer who is genuinely insolvent. But you cannot count on that, and you should not assume it.
Negotiating with the Developer
The lawyers and mortgage brokers in the CTV News report also mention negotiation as an option. While developers have little legal obligation to renegotiate, some will do so, particularly in projects where multiple buyers are in distress and the developer faces the prospect of many defaults.
Possible outcomes of negotiation include: a price reduction to reflect the current appraised value; a vendor take-back mortgage where the developer provides additional financing to bridge the gap; a swap to a smaller or less expensive unit in the same project; or an agreed-upon assignment. None of these options are available as of right, but all are worth exploring before concluding that the only options are close or default.
A Note on the Difference Between Termination and Rescission
These terms are sometimes used interchangeably in everyday conversation, but they are legally distinct, and the distinction matters for buyers in this situation.
Termination brings a contract to an end going forward. If you terminate a contract for a legitimate reason (such as the developer’s breach of the agreement, or failure to satisfy a non-waivable condition), the agreement ends, and you are entitled to recover your deposit. But termination is prospective: it does not erase the contract as though it never existed.
Rescission erases the contract retroactively. A rescinded agreement is treated as though it was never formed. This is the remedy available where the agreement was induced by misrepresentation, or where you exercise the statutory right under sections 73 or 74 of the Condominium Act, 1998. Rescission returns both parties to their pre-contract positions, which for a purchaser means full recovery of the deposit.
Both remedies, if available, allow you to exit the agreement without consequences. The available remedy depends on the factual circumstances and the basis on which you are seeking to exit.
Summary of Available Exits
For pre-construction condo buyers in financial difficulty, the available exits, in order from most straightforward to most complex, are:
The 10-day cooling-off period under section 73 of the Condominium Act, 1998, which applies only to recent agreements and has a strict 10-day deadline.
The right to rescind at any time if the developer never properly delivered the disclosure statement and Condo Guide, because in that case the agreement is not binding and the 10-day clock never started.
The material change rescission right under section 74 of the Condominium Act, 1998, which applies if the developer issued an amended disclosure with genuine material changes to the project, not merely to market conditions.
Tarion Addendum delayed closing termination, which applies if the developer failed to properly follow the critical dates and unavoidable delay rules and the Outside Closing Date has passed.
Early termination conditions, which may have terminated the agreement by operation of law if the developer failed to properly handle non-waivable conditions.
A financing condition in the agreement, if one exists and has not been waived, and if you genuinely cannot obtain the required financing.
Equitable rescission for misrepresentation, where the developer made a material false statement of fact that induced you to enter the agreement, pursued before closing and without delay after discovery.
Assignment of the agreement with the developer’s consent, as a practical exit even if it involves some financial compromise.
If you are a pre-construction condo buyer who cannot close because of a financing shortfall, the first step is to get legal advice before closing day arrives. The available options differ significantly depending on your agreement, the developer’s conduct during construction, and the notices you have received. Missing a deadline to rescind or failing to properly respond to a developer’s notice can permanently close off options that would otherwise have been available to you. Our commercial litigation team advises buyers on pre-construction agreements and the full range of options available when a deal cannot close as originally planned. If default is being considered, our breach of contract practice can help you understand the exposure you face and how to minimize it.
Conclusion
The situation facing pre-construction condo buyers in Toronto is genuinely difficult. Many signed agreements at peak prices, in good faith, with every intention of closing. The market moved against them through no fault of their own, and the law does not automatically provide a remedy for that. Market risk is a risk that buyers accept when they enter a pre-construction agreement.
But market risk is not the only risk these buyers are managing. The specific circumstances of their agreements, the conduct of their developers during construction, and the notices exchanged between the parties over the years may reveal legal exits that are not obvious on the surface. Whether the disclosure statement was properly delivered, whether a material change was made, whether the Tarion critical dates were properly observed, whether an early termination condition terminated the agreement by operation of law, whether a financing condition exists, and where all of these fail, whether the developer made an actionable misrepresentation; each of these is a tool that, in the right circumstances, allows a buyer to exit without forfeiting the deposit or facing a damages claim.
The answer to “can I get out of this deal” is almost always “it depends,” and the facts that matter are very specific to each agreement and each project. If you are in this situation, the most important thing you can do is get proper legal advice before you make any decisions about whether to close, default, or negotiate.
