▁a ▁substitute ▁property . ▁Pla int iffs ▁can ▁never ▁be ▁certain ▁that ▁an ▁action ▁for ▁specific ▁performance ▁will ▁succeed , ▁particularly ▁as ▁this ▁is ▁an ▁equ itable , ▁dis cret ion ary ▁rem edy . ▁Dem and ing ▁that ▁losses ▁be ▁mit ig ated ▁unless ▁success ▁in ▁obtain ing ▁specific ▁performance ▁is ▁assured ▁would ▁d eter ▁valid ▁claims ▁for ▁specific ▁performance ▁and ▁hold ▁pla int iffs ▁to ▁an ▁impossible ▁standard . ▁It ▁can ▁be ▁fairly ▁argued ▁that ▁South c ott ▁did ▁not ▁act ▁un reason ably ▁in ▁purs uing ▁specific ▁performance ▁of ▁the ▁contract . ▁Though ▁the ▁common ▁law ▁pres umption ▁of ▁the ▁uniqu eness ▁of ▁real ▁property ▁no ▁longer ▁holds , ▁a ▁claim ▁for ▁specific ▁performance ▁may ▁still ▁be ▁reasonable ▁if ▁a ▁property ▁has ▁unique ▁characteristics ▁such ▁that ▁a ▁substitute ▁property ▁is ▁not ▁readily ▁available . ▁Whether ▁it ▁could ▁have ▁obtained ▁finan cing ▁to ▁buy ▁a ▁different ▁property ▁is ▁at ▁the ▁very ▁least ▁spec ulative . ▁ ▁Imp act ▁The ▁decision ▁has ▁raised ▁significant ▁debate ▁on ▁many ▁of ▁the ▁issues ▁it ▁discussed : ▁▁ ▁Develop ers ▁normally ▁structure ▁as ▁single - pur pose ▁subs idi aries ▁so ▁that , ▁if ▁a ▁market ▁correction ▁reduces ▁land ▁values , ▁the ▁parent ▁company ▁can ▁pull ▁the ▁plug ▁on ▁the ▁subs idi ary ▁and ▁avoid ▁li ability ▁for ▁dam ages ▁for ▁not ▁comple ting ▁a ▁purchase . ▁If ▁the ▁purch aser ▁had ▁back ed ▁out , ▁and ▁the ▁land ▁had ▁decl ined ▁substantial ly ▁in ▁value , ▁the ▁s eller ▁would ▁have ▁been ▁unable ▁to ▁recover