In Semelhago the court started its consideration with a reference to Adderley v. Dickson (1824), 57 E.R. 239 which held that there is nothing inherently special about realty which entitles it to specific performance. That said the Semelhago case was presented on the basis that the respondent was entitled to specific performance and the appellant had agreed. So, while the bulk of the decision is obiter dicta, as noted by La Forest J. at para. 1, the direct language of the majority compels present consideration.
"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.