“The case law reveals that the equitable remedy of specific performance is routinely awarded in contract actions involving real property, on the premise that each parcel of real property is unique.” —Crew, Judge 

Facts: Jean-Claude Kaufmann owned approximately 37 acres of real property located in the town of Stephentown, Rensselaer County, New York. The property is located in a wooded area and is improved with a nineteenth-century farmhouse. Kaufmann and his spouse, Christine Cacace, reside in New York City and use the property as a weekend or vacation home. Kaufmann listed the property for sale for $350,000. Richard Alba and his spouse (Albas) looked at the property and offered Kaufmann the asking price. The parties executed a contract for sale, and the Albas paid a deposit, obtained a mortgage commitment, and procured a satisfactory home inspection and title insurance. A date for closing the transaction was set. Prior to closing, Cacace sent the Albas an e-mail, indicating that she and Kaufmann had “a change of heart” and no longer wished to go forward with the sale. Albas sent a reply e-mail, stating their intent to go forward with the scheduled closing. When Kaufmann refused to close, the Albas sued, seeking specific performance, and moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court of New York denied the motion. The Albas appealed. 

Issue: Is an order of specific performance of the real estate contract warranted in this case? 

Language of the Court: The Albas plainly discharged that burden here. In short, the record demonstrates that the Albas were ready, willing and able to close and, but for Kaufmann’s admitted refusal to do so, would have consummated the transaction. As to the remedy the Albas seek, the case law reveals that the equitable remedy of specific performance is routinely awarded in contract actions involving real property, on the premise that each parcel of real property is unique. Moreover, volitional unwillingness, as distinguished from good faith inability, to meet contractual obligations furnishes neither a ground for cancellation of the contract nor a defense against its specific performance. 

Decision: The appellate court, as a matter of law, granted the Albas’ motion for summary judgment and ordered Kaufmann to specifically perform the real estate contract. 

Ethics Questions: Was it ethical for Kaufman to try to back out of the contract? Was it ethical for the buyer to sue for specific performance when the seller had a “change of heart” and no longer wanted to sell?