▁the ▁corresponding ▁bur dens , ▁including ▁the ▁duty ▁to ▁mit ig ate ▁its ▁losses . ▁ ▁As am era , ▁when ▁read ▁together ▁with ▁Sem el h ago ▁v . ▁Param ade van , ▁holds ▁that ▁ ▁it ▁" c annot ▁be ▁assumed ▁that ▁dam ages ▁for ▁bre ach ▁of ▁contract ▁for ▁the ▁purchase ▁and ▁sale ▁of ▁real ▁estate ▁will ▁be ▁an ▁in ade qu ate ▁rem edy ▁in ▁all ▁cases ," ▁and ▁specific ▁performance ▁will ▁be ▁available ▁only ▁where ▁money ▁cannot ▁compens ate ▁fully ▁for ▁the ▁loss , ▁because ▁of ▁some ▁“ pe cul iar ▁and ▁special ▁value ” ▁of ▁the ▁land ▁to ▁the ▁pla int iff . ▁ ▁D issent ▁Mc L ach lin ▁C J ▁believed ▁that ▁the ▁trial ▁judge ▁was ▁correct ▁in ▁finding ▁in ▁fact ▁that ▁the ▁Board ▁had ▁not ▁proved ▁that ▁South c ott ▁had ▁an ▁opportunity ▁to ▁mit ig ate , ▁which ▁was ▁sufficient ▁to ▁dispose ▁of ▁the ▁appeal . ▁She ▁would ▁have ▁revers ed ▁the ▁Court ▁of ▁App e al ' s ▁r uling ▁and ▁restored ▁the ▁original ▁ver dict . ▁She ▁saw ▁no ▁basis ▁on ▁which ▁to ▁conclude ▁that ▁South c ott ▁acted ▁un reason ably ▁in ▁maintain ing ▁its ▁suit ▁for ▁specific ▁performance ▁instead ▁of ▁mit ig ating ▁its ▁loss : ▁ ▁It ▁had ▁a ▁“ f air , ▁real , ▁and ▁substantial ▁just ification ” ▁for ▁claim ing ▁specific ▁performance ▁of ▁the ▁contract . ▁The ▁act ▁of ▁fil ing ▁a ▁claim ▁for ▁specific ▁performance ▁is ▁incons istent ▁with ▁the ▁act ▁of ▁acqu iring