Key legal question
Whether invoking the formal nullity of the real-estate precontract amounted to abuse of rights barring restitution of the deposit
Extracted holding
No abuse of rights was shown because the precontract had not been duly performed in its essential points and knowledge of the formal defect was irrelevant once that cumulative condition failed.
Extracted reasoning
For abuse of rights in this context, the contract must have been spontaneously performed at least in its essential parts and in awareness of the formal defect. The planned sale was never completed, ownership never transferred, and the essential performance condition was absent.