March 16, 2010
1. Defendants’ retention of a $600,000 deposit designated as “non-refundable” constituted an invalid forfeiture because a) the contract did not contain a valid liquidated damages clause, and b) plaintiff re-sold the property for a higher price, so there were no out-of-pocket damages.
2. The deposit did not constitute additional consideration for extending the escrow because it was labeled “non-refundable” in the original contract.
Cal.App. 4th Dist., Div. 3 (G040743) 2/3/10