Had the defendants, in fact, intended at that time to bind the plaintiffs personally on the mortgage, the draft purchase and sale agreement would have included such an express provision. Upon receipt of the defendants' draft, counsel for the plaintiffs returned the draft indicating their acceptance subject to minor nonmaterial changes, such as specifying which agent would hold deposits in escrow and the amount of insurance that the defendants would maintain on the property until the delivery of the deed. For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that the parties had a binding contract, that the contract did not require the plaintiffs to provide personal guarantees and that the defendants breached the contract. A judge has considerable discretion with respect to granting specific performance, but it is usually granted in disputes involving the conveyance of land. It is well-settled law in this Commonwealth that real property is unique and money damages will often be inadequate to redress a deprivation of an interest in land.
Specific performance is appropriate in favor of the plaintiffs in the present case.
The written offer, prepared and reviewed by both parties, contained all material terms, including a description of the property and the price to be paid. The parties demonstrated their intention to be bound to those terms by signing the written offer, creating a binding contract that required the defendant to include those material terms in a final purchase and sale agreement. There was no language or provisions binding the plaintiffs to personal guarantees in either draft of the written offer, nor in the draft of the purchase and sale agreement. Because the inclusion of personal guarantees into the purchase and sale agreement would introduce a material term not contemplated in the written offer, the plaintiffs' motion for specific performance without obligation to personal guarantees shall be allowed. Pursuant to Mass. R. Civ.