1. This case concerns the sale and purchase of a commercial property which was sub-sold three times. The 3rd sub-sale involved the Appellant (De Monsa) contracting to purchase the property from the 1st Respondent (Richly Bright) for $135,586,400 (paying a 10% deposit), but De Monsa failed to complete the purchase. The sub-purchasers up the chain also failed to complete their transactions. 2. Summary judgment was entered against De Monsa with Richly Bright held entitled to forfeit the deposit and additionally entitled to damages reflecting losses incurred by parties up the chain of contracts for the sale and purchase of the property. This resulted in De Monsa’s liability being assessed in the total sum of HK$40,783,238 plus interest and costs. These orders were upheld by the Court of Appeal in dismissing De Monsa’s appeal. 3. The question before this Court was whether liability in that total amount was correctly imposed. 4. The Court considered the principles governing the amount of damages recoverable for breach of a contract for the sale and purchase of property, especially where there were sub-sales. An award of damages aims to place the innocent party financially in the position he would have occupied if the contract had duly been performed, but within the limits of losses within the parties’ reasonable contemplation and losses for which responsibility has been contractually assumed. 5. The normal rule where the purchaser buying directly from the property owner fails to complete is for the award of damages to equal the difference between the contract price and the market value of the property at the completion date. However, damages payable to a sub-purchasing confirmor whose own sub-purchaser fails to complete are measured by the difference between the price at which the confirmor had contracted to purchase the property and the on-sale price agreed with his sub-purchaser. Where, as is usually the case, the purchaser or sub-purchaser has provided a deposit, the vendor’s remedy is confined to forfeiture of the deposit unless the loss flowing from the breach exceeds the value of the deposit. In the present case, the loss which Richly Bright suffered was less than the deposit. 6. The Court therefore held that the awards made below erroneously exceeded the amounts recoverable on a proper application of the limiting principles mentioned above. De Monsa had assumed responsibility to compensate Richly Bright by agreeing to the forfeiture of the deposit in the sum of HK$13,586,499 and, there being no additional recoverable loss, Richly Bright’s remedy was limited to such forfeiture. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Orders of the lower courts. Concurring judgment of Tang PJ: 7. Tang PJ was of the view that the Respondents’ claims, other than for the forfeiture of the deposit must fail because the normal rule for the recovery of damages is the difference between the contract price and the market value at the time of completion, and there was no claim for damages on such basis. The Respondents’ other claims were neither within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of the contract nor were they for losses in respect of which the Appellant could be regarded as having undertaken responsibility.