Court won’t force Bitcoin sale, orders money returned with interest
The court declined. It found the parties never formed an enforceable contract to buy or sell Bitcoin.
The two sides had done business before. Under an August 2021 written agreement, the buyer wired funds, the seller sent a quote setting the quantity and unit price, and the buyer approved it in writing before any Bitcoin changed hands. That deal closed within days.
The January 2022 attempt never reached that stage. After the buyer wired the money, no quote was sent and none was approved. According to the ruling, the buyer’s principal spent the following months asking the seller to track down and return the funds rather than requesting a quote. Receipt of the money was never formally confirmed, and no Bitcoin was purchased.
The buyer argued that emails about wiring the money, together with the transfer itself, created a binding agreement or a fiduciary duty for the seller to provide a quote. The court disagreed. It held that price and quantity were essential terms, and given Bitcoin’s acknowledged volatility, they could not be left open or supplied by a judge. The judge found that “wiring the money alone did not give rise to an enforceable agreement.”
That distinction shaped the remedy. Because no contract existed, the court ruled the buyer could not claim breach-of-contract damages or specific performance. The proper remedy was restitution: the seller must return the money with interest, which the defence had already conceded it owed.
