Hubert Fernando v. Kusumananda De Silva – sllr 1991 volume 1 page 187

In the case between Hurbest Fernando (Plaintiff) and Kusumananda de Silva (Defendant), the court addressed the issue of whether the vendor’s refund of a deposit under a contract for the sale of property constitutes a valid substituted performance or if the plaintiff may compel specific performance of the sale. It was held that the return of the deposit did not amount to a discharge of the vendor’s primary obligation to convey title, thus affirming the plaintiff’s substantive right to enforce specific performance of the contract. The decision reaffirmed the principle that contractual obligations regarding alternative performances must be construed precisely, and mere refund of an advance payment does not preclude specific enforcement where stipulated by the agreement. Reliance was placed on