The Plaintiff sought summary judgment and specific performance for an aborted real estate transaction.
The Defendant breached the Agreement of Purchase and Sale by refusing to close, initially citing spousal objection, which was later resolved by a court order.
The court found the Defendant in anticipatory breach and the Plaintiff to be the innocent party.
The central issue was whether the Plaintiff was entitled to specific performance or damages.
Applying the "uniqueness" test from Semelhago, the court found the property unique, considering market conditions and the unavailability of comparable properties within the Plaintiff's price range.
The Plaintiff was deemed justified in not mitigating damages, especially given the Defendant's retention of the deposit.
Summary judgment was granted in favour of the Plaintiff, ordering specific performance of the agreement.