▁any ▁dam ages ▁beyond ▁the ▁depos it . ▁ ▁Therefore , ▁it ▁is ▁arg u ably ▁fair ▁that ▁South c ott ▁failed ▁to ▁recover ▁dam ages ▁when ▁the ▁sh oe ▁was ▁on ▁the ▁other ▁foot . ▁ ▁However , ▁the ▁decision ▁( although ▁seen ▁to ▁be ▁well - based ▁in ▁legal ▁theory ) ▁does ▁not ▁reflect ▁the ▁commercial ▁reality ▁of ▁real ▁estate ▁development , ▁where ▁l enders ▁are ▁normally ▁rel uct ant ▁to ▁advance ▁funds ▁to ▁a ▁company ▁with ▁limited ▁assets ▁that ▁is ▁em bro iled ▁in ▁lit ig ation , ▁even ▁when ▁back ed ▁by ▁a ▁large ▁corpor ate ▁group . ▁ ▁While ▁South c ott ▁appears ▁to ▁have ▁significantly ▁restricted ▁the ▁opportunity ▁to ▁purs ue ▁specific ▁performance ▁in ▁relation ▁to ▁commercial ▁transactions , ▁it ▁did ▁not ▁conclus ively ▁restrict ▁specific ▁performance ▁to ▁resident ial ▁transactions . ▁ ▁Although ▁South c ott ▁had ▁admitted ▁at ▁trial ▁that ▁it ▁made ▁no ▁attempts ▁to ▁purchase ▁a ▁compar able ▁property , ▁one ▁can ▁argue ▁that ▁a ▁complete ▁failure ▁to ▁make ▁any ▁efforts ▁to ▁mit ig ate ▁is ▁tant amount ▁to ▁that ▁type ▁of ▁ad mission . ▁Either ▁way , ▁dam ages ▁for ▁bre ach ▁of ▁contract ▁continue ▁to ▁be ▁the ▁only ▁rem edy ▁that ▁the ▁bu yer ▁should ▁expect . ▁ ▁South c ott ▁is ▁significant ▁because ▁it ▁confir ms ▁that ▁a ▁claim ▁for ▁specific ▁performance ▁will ▁not ▁ins ulate ▁a ▁pla int iff ▁from ▁the ▁duty ▁to ▁mit ig ate . ▁It ▁is ▁also ▁not ew orth y ▁because ▁the ▁majority ▁as ▁well ▁as