Russ wyant owned humble ranch in perkins county, south dakota. edward humble, whose parents had previously owned the ranch, was wyant’s uncle. humble held a two-year option to buy the ranch. the option included specific conditions. once it was exercised, the parties had thirty days to enter into a purchase agreement, and the seller could become the buyer’s lender by matching the terms of the proposed financing. after the option was exercised, the parties engaged in lengthy negotiations, but humble did not respond to wyant’s proposed purchase agreement nor advise him of available financing terms before the option expired. six months later, humble filed a suit against wyant to enforce the option. is humble entitled to specific performance? explain

Cosnider the following text.

Explanation:

In accordance with the United Stated Contract Law, peformance must form an integral part of the contract and any of it's clauses, along with consideration for the same.

As seen in the case above, specific provisions in the contract provide for the possibility of the seller becoming the buyer's lender by matching the terms of the proposed financing. However, it must be understood that a decision taken about the same by either one party is not binding on the other, and comes into effect only if it is mutually agreed upon under the same terms.

In the case above, Russ' uncle, Edward has exercised his two year option to buy the land from Russ, which if exercised, gave the parties 30 days to conclude the sale. However, as seen in the question, Russ's uncle, Edward was unresponsive to Russ' proposed purchase plan, indicating that he was aware of the terms of the contract and Russ' proposal, yet chose not to act on it. However, owing to the time clause in the contract, failure to respond an come to an agreement by either of the parties within the specified time, would render it void. Furthermore, Edward did not advise Russ on the financing terms pertaining to the contract before it's expiry, indicating that he had no interest in performing the contract.

Therefore, it should be understoof that Edward is not entitled to specific performance as a remedy in this case, as it is his fault and not Russ' fault for the non-performance of his part of the contract. He does not have any remedy at all, unless he is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Russ had not made efforts to communicate with him. Russ on the other hand, can sue Edward according to the terms of the contract and seek damages accordingly.