What is the test for suing for specific performance of a contract?

11 Generally, I consider that the equities are strongly on the side of the plaintiffs. In the vernacular, they have paid their money but they haven't received the goods. They have paid the price, but the defendants have not delivered. I accept the submissions, however, that there is no obligation at this time on the defendants to deliver, that the addendum of March, 1996, requires completion only 30 days after registration of the subdivision, and of course the subdivision has not yet been registered. However, I don't believe that weakens the position of the plaintiffs. In that regard, I refer to the excerpt from The Law of Contracts (2nd Edition) by Fridman, relating to anticipatory breach in which the learned author, at page 575, says: An alternative which appears to be open to the innocent party is that of suing for specific performance. It was held in Kloepfer Wholesale Hardware Company v. Roy, 1952 CanLII 8 (SCC), [1952] 2 S.C.R. 465, that after an anticipatory breach, even though the innocent party did not accept the repudiation, he could obtain specific performance of a contract for the sale of land. It did not matter that the innocent party brought his suit before the due date for performance of the contract which had been repudiated, but if he did so, the plaintiff might not get specific performance right away but a declaration that he had a right to such performance on the due date. That would certainly appear to be the situation here.