In court. This time, it involves an attempt to force people that put down deposits on condos to close on those units. The N.C. Court of Appeals, in a decision that came down today, agreed with the trial judge that the wording of the contracts at issue doesn’t allow the Vue to sue for specific performance. The appeals court held that:

Purchasers argue, and the trial court found, that because the agreements provide only that The VUE may recover liquidated damages in the event of Purchasers’ default, but provide that Purchasers are entitled to any available equitable remedies in the event of The VUE’s default, there are no remedies available to The VUE other than the liquidated damages. We agree.

So a poor-timed, overambitious concept also suffers from poorly done legal work. Why does this not come as a surprise?