{"issue_text":"Whether the respondent has a bona fide defense to the applicant's claim for summary judgment","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Respondent's claims of cost increases and supervening impossibility"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the applicant is entitled to cancellation of the contract and repayment of the deposit","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Payment of deposit, failure to perform, cancellation"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the respondent established a prima facie defense that would entitle it to succeed at trial","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Respondent's allegations of material cost increases and transporter failure"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant paid a deposit of US$11,840 to the respondent for the renovation of two tennis courts, but the respondent failed to commence or complete the work despite receiving payment. The applicant cancelled the contract and sought summary judgment for repayment of the deposit plus interest.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases