## Facts

- In July 1979, Mr. and Mrs. Ali agreed to sell their house to Mr. and Mrs. Patel, with completion contemplated about a month later.
- Completion was delayed for over four years due to difficulties serving Mr. Ali abroad and bankruptcy proceedings affecting his interest.
- During the delay, a decree of specific performance was made in favor of the Patels.
- After contracting, Mrs. Ali’s circumstances changed drastically: she developed bone cancer, had her right leg amputated at the hip, and became a mother of two additional children.
- During the same period, Mr. Ali spent about a year in prison and then left the country, leaving Mrs. Ali with reduced support.
- Mrs. Ali became heavily reliant on nearby friends, neighbors, and relatives for daily assistance and childcare.
- Enforcing the sale would require Mrs. Ali to leave her home and local support network, creating severe personal and practical burdens.
- The Patels’ loss from non-completion was primarily financial and could be compensated with money.

## Issues

1. Whether the court should grant or maintain specific performance of a land sale contract when the vendor suffers severe, unforeseen post-contract hardship not caused by the purchaser.
2. Whether damages in lieu of specific performance were an adequate remedy for the purchasers in the circumstances.

## Decision

- The court refused specific performance and discharged the existing decree.
- The court awarded damages in lieu of specific performance.
- The court concluded that compelling performance would impose hardship on Mrs. Ali amounting to injustice, and equity should not enforce the order in those conditions.

## Legal Principles

- Specific performance is a discretionary equitable remedy, not granted as of right, including for contracts for the sale of land.
- A court may refuse specific performance where enforcement would cause hardship amounting to injustice to the defendant.
- The relevant hardship may arise after formation of the contract, may be unrelated to the contract’s subject matter, and may exist even when not caused by the claimant.
- In exercising discretion, the court may weigh the defendant’s hardship against the claimant’s position, including whether damages can adequately compensate the claimant.

## Conclusion

The court declined to compel completion of a land sale because drastic, post-contract changes in the vendor’s health and dependence on a local support network made enforcement unjust; the purchasers were confined to damages as an adequate substitute remedy.


Patel v. Ali, [1984] Ch. 283 (Ch. Div. 1984)