Will That Be Performance - Or Cash: Semelhago v. Paramadevan and the Notion of Equivalence
Donald H. Clark
Abstract
Open-access reader
Donald H. Clark
Abstract
Open-access reader
This article discusses the manner in which the Supreme Court of Canada assessed damages in Semelhago v. Paramadevan, a dispute arising from a breach of contract for sale of land. The author analyzes the decision as it affects established real estate law and principles governing judicial remedies available in contracts. Before Semelhago, specific performance was normally granted as all land was presumed to have no substitute and therefore, damages were considered to be inadequate. As a result of the decision in Semelhago, the plaintiff, whether vendor or purchaser, is now required to adduce evidence that the specific property in question is unique. The plaintiff retains the right to request specific examine performance or damages and can make her election any time up until the date of the trial. The author discusses when the value of the property should be assessed and the deductions that should be included in the final judgment. He also outlines the confusion and uncertainty this judgment has created and how the plaintiff is overcompensated by using thisformula. A solution to this dilemma is presented.
OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
This article discusses the manner in which the Supreme Court of Canada assessed damages in Semelhago v. Paramadevan, a dispute arising from a breach of contract for sale of land. The author analyzes the decision as it affects established real estate law and principles governing judicial remedies available in contracts. Before Semelhago, specific performance was normally granted as all land was presumed to have no substitute and therefore, damages were considered to be inadequate. As a result of the decision in Semelhago, the plaintiff, whether vendor or purchaser, is now required to adduce evidence that the specific property in question is unique. The plaintiff retains the right to request specific examine performance or damages and can make her election any time up until the date of the trial. The author discusses when the value of the property should be assessed and the deductions that should be included in the final judgment. He also outlines the confusion and uncertainty this judgment has created and how the plaintiff is overcompensated by using thisformula. A solution to this dilemma is presented.
Key concepts: Damages, Plaintiff, Supreme court, Confusion, Dilemma, Law, Law and economics, Economics