The fact that the house is not unique means that specific performance would not be an appropriate remedy: Semelhago v. Paramadevan, 1996 CanLII 209 (SCC), 136 D.L.R. (4th) 1 (S.C.C.). If there is an enforceable contract the Respondent’s remedy would be limited to damages. In these circumstances the caveat should not remain.
"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.