Next the plaintiff cited the decision in Bosaid v. Andry, [1963] V.R. 465. The court found there was a contract between the parties for the sale of property. Sholl J. held that as specific performance could have been given, therefore the plaintiff was entitled to damages in lieu of specific performance. Sholl J. went on at p. 490 to say in obiter that with respect to common law damages he would have allowed the plaintiff to: … revive that breach, or to treat it as still available, and do not insist on his waiting for a fresh one.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.