6. Will the landowner probably succeed in an action against the farmer for specific performance?

A proper remedy for breach in a contract for land is specific performance. Regarding land, the rule that specific performance is an extraordinary remedy is suspended. All land is considered unique, and barring special equitable circumstances, a court will require specific performance on a land contract under common law. Further, to balance the equities, a seller is offered specific performance as a remedy just the same as the buyer, even though they are receiving payment instead of land.

Under common law, less than perfect performance, or a minor breach, by one party does not excuse performance in the other party. Barring a «time is of the essence» clause in a contract for land, failure to perform by the time stated in the contract is neither a substantial nor material breach. Further, because the landowner gave a specific time that the land would be available, the farmer cannot even claim insecurity. Therefore, the farmer has a duty to perform (purchase the land).

B is correct. The landowner will succeed in an action for specific performance because the farmer had no legal excuse to breach, and the land is unique. As explained above, when a party has committed only a partial breach of a contract, the other party to the contract remains obligated to perform, and refusal to perform is a substantial breach and will give the partially-breaching party the right to either specific performance or money damages. Because the facts suggest that there is no «time is of the essence» clause in the contract, the two-week delay is only a partial breach. Therefore, the farmer's refusal to pay the purchase price was a repudiation of the contract, which justified an action by the landowner for specific performance.

A is incorrect. The facts do not suggest excuse on grounds of impossibility. Impossibility requires that performance of a duty required by the contract is objectively impossible. Impossibility is commonly seen in the destruction of the subject matter of the contract, a change in law that makes the transaction impossible (perhaps a government actor seizes the land), or death of a party to the contract.

C is incorrect. Although the landowner's failure to deliver possession was a breach, it was only a partial breach. The only time that a failure to perform at a certain time is a material breach is if the contract explicitly includes a «time is of the essence» clause. The facts do not indicate that such a clause exists, so the landowner's breach is minor, and the farmer can only recover money damages if such damages exist.

D is incorrect. Contracts involving the sale of land have historically been regarded as unique, and therefore, specific performance is typically allowed even where the breaching party is the buyer. This allowance is to balance the equities of relief between buyer and seller. Judges will heavily weigh whether a remedy of specific performance can be properly and realistically supervised and enforced by the court. In the case of unique goods, it is straight-forward enough to see that the sheriff oversees the transfer of the unique property. Contrast this with a contract for services, say of an architect designing a home, and compelling that architect to perform, and to perform properly, becomes much more impracticable for the court.