CASE SUMMARY 3.4 Is Specific Performance Always an Appropriate Remedy for Land Transactions? Semelhago v. Paramadevan69 Although damages or monetary compensation is the common remedy in a civil action, sometimes the court will order the equitable remedy of specific performance. In land transactions, it was thought that because all land is unique, specific performance would always be available-at least until this case was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. Semelhago agreed to purchase a house from Paramadevan that was under construction, for $205000. When it was time to perform the contract, Paramadevan refused, and this action was brought. Semelhago asked for the remedy of specific performance-or, as permitted by statute, damages in lieu of specific performance. At the trial he elected to receive damages, and the Court awarded him $125000 damages in lieu of specific performance. The reason for this high award was that the market value of the house had risen from the $205000 agreed upon at the time the contract was made to $325 000 at the time of trial. Paramadevan appealed the award, and the Appeal Court reduced it by the amount of the interest that Semelhago would have had to pay to finance the purchase of the house over the period from when the contract was entered into until the trial, saying that damages should reflect not only the increase in the value of the house from the time of the contract but also the interest that would have been paid out had the deal closed as required by the contract. This reduced the damages to just less than $82000. The purpose of such damages is to put the victim in the position he would have been in had the contract been properly performed-so the interest he would have had to pay should have been taken into consideration. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that specific performance should not always be considered the appropriate remedy in such land transaction disputes. It then refused to further reduce the award, and also refused to take into consideration the increased value of the house that Semelhago had intended to sell to acquire the one in question, but which he had instead retained. This case shows the factors that will be taken into consideration when assessing damages to be paid. An important statement that came out of the case was that it should no longer be thought that all land is unique, so specific performance is therefore not always appro- priate in a land transaction. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS Consider the remedies available to a court in a civil action. Here the Court refused to grant specific performance but took into consideration the increasing value of the