In the context of a contract for the sale of land, a given service may be granted under a right begun at the end of the date of completion of the contract, but before the notification of an opinion on the complete duration of manufacture of the essential. If the parties enter into a purchase and sale agreement (GSP) for a residential property, this will have consequences for the breach of the agreement if the transaction is not concluded. Often, it is the buyer who violates an agreement because he has not secured sufficient funds in time. In this case, the seller is usually entitled to a loss of profit if he is forced to sell the property to a new buyer for a lower amount. In addition, in the meantime, they may incur additional expenses, for example. B the carrying of two mortgages pending the new sale of the house, as well as the lawyer`s fees. All of these costs are usually taken into account in any compensation before the courts. However, in some cases, it is the seller who does not comply with his obligations under the GSP. In this case, what are the possibilities available to the buyer with regard to corrective measures? Can a buyer oblige a seller to fulfil his obligations under the GSP and sell the house as agreed? A given benefit is ordered at the discretion of the Tribunal if damages do not remedy the entire situation or if a given benefit becomes “more perfect and complete”. The buyers had entered into an SPG with the seller, acting under the authority of the power of attorney, on behalf of his father, who owned the property. Before the conclusion of the transaction, the father contradicted the sale and, therefore, the seller did not conclude. Instead of waiting for legal action, the buyer immediately looked for another home because the market was active and they feared they would lose as property prices continued to rise. They had initially agreed to pay US$940,000 for the original house and found a replacement property for which they paid US$945,000 $US.
If the court had simply awarded them damages for the difference, they might have been entitled to only the additional $5,000 and other costs of the delay. However, the buyers argued that the original house was unique and that they should have received compensation for the specific service to which the sellers should have been bound. While the sellers talked about the fact that a house in a subdivision was not inherently unique, the court disagreed. The Court found that there were a number of features of the house that together made the property unique, including: on the basis of the above-mentioned fundamental legal principle with regard to the granting of exemption from the specific performance of a contract, the Supreme Court of India recently annulled in a judgment of Jayakantham and others against Abaykumar the Decree on the Concrete Execution of a Contract for the Sale of Immovable Property and granting financial compensation. to the purchaser (respondent) instead of the exemption from the given service. In the present case, Jayakantham and others against Abaykumar, the Court of Justice adopted the Decree on the Specific Benefit to the Defendant Buyer, which was upheld by the Senior District Judge on appeal and by the Madras Supreme Court in the second appeal. However, the Supreme Court issued a contrary opinion and annulled the decree of the specific benefit. In appropriate circumstances, the Tribunal may award a specified benefit even before the contractual obligation in question has been breached, on the basis that the right of equity to pursue a particular benefit provides that the claimant has presented circumstances justifying the intervention of an equity court instead of requiring the existence of a plea. . . .