Case Study: Monroes And The Temples

324 Words2 Pages
4. If someone backs out of an agreement to sell an acre of land, he should be ordered to turn over the land itself because even a party gets money back from another party who breaches a contract, the party cannot get substitute items. Samuelson argues that, "Money domages would be inadequate for all these things since the injured party, even if she get the cash, could not go out and buy a substitute item." (Samuelson, 390) In the Monroes and the Temples case, Samuelson explains that the Temples want the house. They don't need money. If they get back deposit from the Monroes, the Temples cannot buy a substitute house because the house they want exists only one. On the other hand, in case of "Farmer Ted", what he needs is money. He needs recover