As a refresher, you sorted through the madness between Guiseppi Holdings ("Guiseppi") and Precious Properties ("Precious"), where Guiseppi was looking to sell two of its bare land lots (Lots 27 and 28) in North Hillwood, British Columbia. On April 1, Mr. Guiseppi called Ms. Jafari, the president of Precious, offering to sell Lots 27 and 28 for $5.5 million. On April 2, Ms. Jafari called Mr. Guiseppi to accept the offer, and later that day, the parties entered into a written contract. The completion date for the transaction (i.e., the day when Precious would pay for the properties and Guiseppi would transfer the legal title to the properties) was May 15.

Question:

On April 10, Mr. Guiseppi called Ms. Jafari with some bad news. His company had miscalculated how much they would be left with after the sale of Lots 27 and 28. Remember, the objective behind selling these lots was to help cover the skyrocketing costs it was facing in another development project. Mr. Guiseppi's financial advisors simply instructed him that he could not sell Lots 27 and 28 at such aprice ($5.5 million). Mr. Guiseppi tried to convince Ms. Jafari to amend the contract to a sale price of $6.5 million, but after she refused, Mr. Guiseppi told her that they would not be completing the sale to Precious on April 12.Ms. Jafari was furious and, shortly after April 12 came and went,she initiated a lawsuit against Guiseppi for breach of contract, asking the court for the remedy of specific performance. What types of arguments must Precious make in order to succeed in obtaining specific performance, and do you think they will ultimately succeed?