Afrasiab Amiri is not the type of person you would expect to be on the losing end of a real-estate transaction. As the owner of a company involved in construction and development in Iran, he employs 260 people, according to a 2012 B.C. Supreme Court ruling.

The author of that decision, Justice Patrice Abrioux, also wrote that Amiri, an Iranian immigrant, “takes an active role in the management” of his firm. He has bought several properties in the Vancouver area, as well as in Iran and Dubai.

Amiri also has a PhD in industrial management and is part-owner of a private university, which has 100 permanent employees and 90 part-time staff.

In other words, he’s a very rich and intelligent man—just the type who could afford a luxurious $2.98-million, 17th-storey pad in the Erickson. That’s a swank project at 1560 Homer Mews on the north shore of False Creek.

But a series of unexpected events prevented Amiri from moving into this dream home on what used to be known as the Concord Pacific lands. (In 2009, Concord’s name was changed to One West Holdings Ltd.; it is a subsidiary of Adex Securities Inc.)

And this month, a B.C. Court of Appeal ruling upheld the earlier decision by Abrioux forcing Amiri to give up his $745,325 pre-payment to the seller, Erickson Projects Limited Partnership.

“In my view, the forfeited funds constituted a deposit and the forfeiture provisions of the contract were enforceable,” Justice Harvey Groberman wrote in a unanimous April 9 decision endorsed by Justice John Hall and Justice Anne MacKenzie.

Abrioux ruled last year that the contract gave Erickson Projects Limited Partnership the “exclusive right” to determine the completion date. Abrioux noted that Amiri is a “sophisticated businessman” who had access to professional advice and who entered into a contract knowing the terms were non-negotiable.

In addition, Abrioux stated that the earlier property owner, Concord Pacific, “did not know when the contract was entered into in 2005 what the market would be in December 2008”.

Amiri didn’t appeal Abrioux’s decision to uphold Erickson Projects Limited Partnership’s right with respect to the date of completion. However, he asked the B.C. Court of Appeal to return his $745,325.

Amiri tried to claim that his pre-payment was not a “true deposit” because the contractual language permitted the seller to keep it “as liquidated damages” if he violated the terms.

The B.C. Court of Appeal panel rejected that argument, citing a recent ruling in B.C.’s highest court setting out legal principles for real-estate deposits. It read: “A true deposit is an ancient invention of the law designed to motivate contracting parties to carry through with their bargains. Consistent with its purpose, a deposit is generally forfeited by a buyer who repudiates the contract, and is not [dependent] on proof of damages by the other party.”

Construction of the Erickson was expected to be finished by December 2008, but the completion date was delayed until March 15, 2010.

“Because the purchaser was staying at a remote agricultural property in northern Iran at that time, he did not learn of the [exact] closing date until March 4 or 5,” Groberman wrote in the B.C. Court of Appeal ruling.

He noted that Amiri’s lawyer obtained a two-week extension to March 29, 2010.

“In the meantime, the purchaser was involved in a motor vehicle incident in Iran, and was hospitalized,” Groberman added. “On March 10, a neurological surgeon who examined him advised him to remain on bed rest for three weeks.”

However, financing couldn’t be arranged because a credit union official required the signatures of Amiri and his wife at the branch, which wasn’t possible because his wife was in Iran. Correspondence went back and forth before Erickson Projects Limited Partnership declared that the contract had been terminated on April 9, 2010.

“By April 16, the purchaser secured the funds needed to complete the purchase,” Groberman wrote. “His lawyer wrote to the vendor’s solicitor, purporting to set April 20 as the new date for completion, but offering to complete on April 19 if the vendor desired to do so. The vendor continued to take the position that the contract had been terminated, and the transaction did not complete.”