Some say money cures all evils; others fervently disagree. The legal remedy of "specific performance," dating back to English Common Law, exposes this debate in the context of modern contractual disputes involving real property. Is it time to retire this approach in favor of monetary damages, or should land still be considered unique under the law?

An Alternative Approach: Money Damages—A Sufficient Standalone Remedy

Unlike in feudal England, when parcels of land were considered agricultural marvels, plots today are commonly cookie-cutter molds whose only difference is the number on the front doors. See, e.g., Steven Shavell, Specific Performance Versus Damages for Breach of Contract, Discussion Paper No. 532, Harvard L. Sch., at 24 n.67 (Nov. 2005). A buyer of such a building may willingly take a cash payout if a contract were to go wrong as the house next door could just as easily be purchased. Nancy Perkins Spyke, What's Land Got To Do With It?: Rhetoric and Indeterminacy in Land's Favored Legal Status, 52 Buff. L. Rev. 387, 397 (April 2004).

Even when properties possess distinct characteristics, we live in a world where the only limiting factor is the amount of money you are willing (or able) to spend to build a replica. The moniker of a "one-of-a-kind property" is largely an illusion in the real estate market today.