Brief Fact Summary. A couple purchased a condominium unit from a real estate developer. Shortly after paying the deposit the husband, was transferred out of state by his employer. The buyers cancelled their deposit checks, and the developer sued for specific performance.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. "[S]pecific performance relief should no longer be automatically available to a vendor of real estate, but should be confined to those special instances where a vendor will otherwise suffer an economic injury for which his damage remedy at law will not be adequate, or where other equitable considerations require that the relief be granted."
Issue. Whether specific performance is an appropriate remedy for "the enforcement of a contract for the sale of a condominium apartment?"
Held. Depends who is bringing the action. The court first observes "[t]he principle underlying the specific performance remedy is equity's jurisdiction to grant relief where the damage remedy at law is inadequate." Due to the uniqueness of parcels of real estate, the thought is that money damages do not provide adequate compensation to the purchaser of real estate. The court recognizes however, that this rationale does not apply to the seller of real estate, because their damages are usually calculable. Instead this remedy, when allowed in this context, has been "an outgrowth of the equitable concept of mutuality, I.e., that equity would not specifically enforce an agreement unless the remedy was available to both parties." The court then observed that the New Jersey Supreme Court in [Fleischer v. James Drug Stores] held "mutuality of remedy is not an appropriate basis for granting or denying specific performance."
• As such, the court concluded "[t]he disappearance of the mutuality of remedy doctrine from our law dictates the conclusion that specific performance relief should no longer be automatically available to a vendor of real estate, but should be confined to those special instances where a vendor will otherwise suffer an economic injury for which his damage remedy at law will not be adequate, or where other equitable considerations require that the relief be granted." The court observed that the condominium unit involved here was not unique, but like hundreds of virtually identical units. The pricing of the units is based solely on the type of floor plan. As such, a damage remedy is sufficient.
The court is bound to see that it really does the complete justice which it aims at and which is the ground of its jurisdiction.View Full Point of Law