Real estate glossary and exam guide
Specific performance: when a court can require the promised sale
The buyer has the down payment and mortgage approval. The seller has a better offer and refuses to close. If the question asks for the remedy that could require the promised conveyance, think specific performance. Then check whether the facts support it.
Last reviewed:
The short answer
Specific performance is an equitable remedy that orders a party to carry out an enforceable contract rather than merely pay substitute damages. In a real estate sale, it can require the promised conveyance. Illinois decisions require a valid, sufficiently definite agreement, the claimant’s performance or supported readiness and ability to perform, and the other party’s failure or refusal. The contract’s remedy provisions and equitable circumstances still matter. Land’s uniqueness does not make every disputed sale automatically enforceable.
Reviewed October 27, 2026. PSI places performance, discharge and breach remedies within national V, Contracts. That whole broker domain has nineteen scored questions, with no separate promised quota for specific performance. The cases below are original teaching exercises, not PSI questions. This page explains the remedy; it does not decide an actual transaction, title dispute or litigation deadline.
Start with the promise, then test the requested remedy
- Identify what the claimant wants. An order requiring the agreed conveyance is specific performance. Money paid instead of the promised performance is a different remedy. The court enforces an existing agreement; it does not choose a price or write a bargain the parties never made.
- Establish an enforceable, sufficiently definite agreement. Identify the parties, property and material sale terms, including the price or an agreed workable method of determining it. A promise to agree on the price later presents a different problem. Read conditions, amendments and the complete agreement rather than treating one signature or one sentence as the whole contract.
- Check the required signed evidence and authority. Illinois land-sale agreements generally need the signed writing or memorandum required by the Frauds Act. The relevant signature is that of the party against whom enforcement is sought, or a properly authorised agent within the statute’s written-authority requirement. A broker’s authority to market property is not, by itself, authority to sign the owner’s sale contract. Qualified exceptions exist; do not label every oral land agreement void.
- Treat electronic execution as a form question, not a cure for every defect. Under Illinois’s Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, the parties’ agreement to transact electronically, attribution of the record or signature and other applicable law matter. An electronic record or signature is not denied legal effect solely because it is electronic. A typed name alone does not establish assent, authority, definite terms or the right to specific performance.
- Examine performance and readiness. The claimant must have complied with the contract or establish the applicable readiness, willingness and ability to perform. A buyer who merely hopes to obtain financing has not established ability. Where the other party prevents performance, the law can excuse the prevented act on the proven facts. That does not erase the claimant’s need to establish actual ability and the other requirements.
- Identify the refusal and any unsatisfied conditions. A seller’s refusal despite the buyer’s compliance is different from a buyer properly exercising an agreed financing contingency. A valid contractual termination is not automatically a breach. Follow the actual notice, cure, condition and waiver provisions rather than inventing a statewide waiting period or assuming every financing denial ends the agreement.
- Read the remedy clause carefully. A liquidated-damages provision does not, merely by existing, eliminate specific performance. A valid exclusive-remedy provision can restrict relief, however. The contract as a whole, applicable law and any effective modification matter. The word exclusive need not appear if the agreement otherwise clearly makes a remedy the sole one.
- Consider why equity is appropriate. Illinois decisions recognise the importance and uniqueness of land when money cannot provide adequate relief. Specific performance remains subject to the court’s equitable assessment. Related fraud, bad faith, oppression, inequitable hardship or a supported delay defence can matter. The slogan land is unique does not answer these remaining questions.
- Keep the claim, temporary relief and earnest money separate. Seeking specific performance does not itself transfer title or automatically freeze a later sale. A preliminary injunction has its own requirements and does not finally decide the contract claim. A broker holding disputed earnest money must follow the applicable release and dispute rules; the broker does not decide who wins the lawsuit.
| Question cue | Best starting point | What still needs checking |
|---|---|---|
| Require the promised deed | Specific performance | Enforceability, readiness, refusal, remedy limits and equity |
| Money instead of the sale | Compensatory damages | The applicable contract, proof and damages rules |
| An agreed sum for a default | Liquidated damages | Validity, scope and whether it is exclusive |
| Undo the agreement | Rescission | Its grounds, timing and appropriate restoration |
| Preserve the situation before trial | Preliminary injunction | Separate requirements; it is not a final performance award |
| Release contested earnest money | Escrow release and dispute rules | Proper authority and procedure, not the broker’s view of the winner |
The distinctions that matter
| Distinction | How it works | What to notice |
|---|---|---|
| Specific performance and substitute damages | The first seeks the promised performance; the second generally seeks money for the breach. | Ask whether the desired result is the conveyance or a monetary substitute. |
| Specific performance and incidental compensation | A court may award appropriate compensation for delay alongside a decree when needed for complete relief. | That does not make every business loss recoverable or permit duplicate recovery. |
| Liquidated damages and an exclusive remedy | An agreed damages amount and a limit on all remedies are different questions. | Read whether the complete contract actually makes that remedy the sole one. |
| Readiness and a mere intention to buy | Supported funds and available required financing differ from an unsupported promise to find the money. | Willing is only part of ready, willing and able. |
| Excused tender and excused financial ability | The seller’s obstruction can excuse a prevented act on the proven facts. | It does not manufacture funds the buyer never had. |
| Writing and electronic form | A qualifying electronic record can satisfy a writing requirement. | Electronic form does not prove that the person agreed or had authority. |
| Specific performance and rescission | One affirms and enforces the agreement; the other seeks to undo it under its applicable grounds. | Do not choose rescission when the requested relief is the promised conveyance. |
| Final performance and a preliminary injunction | A final performance decree decides the requested contractual relief; temporary protection preserves matters pending a decision. | Winning interim protection is not the final merits judgment. |
| Contract remedy and escrow authority | The parties’ substantive rights differ from the broker’s permitted release process. | A demand letter does not itself authorise disputed-fund disbursement. |
Work through the facts
A better offer does not answer the remedy question
Assume an enforceable, sufficiently definite sale contract. The buyer has complied with it, has available financing and the required funds, and can close. The seller refuses solely because another buyer offers more. Assume no remedy limitation or other equitable obstacle.
- The requested result is the originally promised conveyance.
- The supplied facts address enforceability, readiness and refusal.
Answer: Specific performance is the remedy the buyer could seek to compel the sale. The exercise supplies the necessary assumptions; the better offer does not itself give the seller a contractual cancellation right.
A price left for future negotiation
A note says the owner will sell an identified parcel at a price the parties will agree on next year. They have supplied no binding price, objective method or other established basis for determining it.
- The requested order would require the court to create a material term.
- A signature does not fill that gap.
Answer: On these facts, the buyer has not established the sufficiently definite bargain needed for specific performance. This differs from an agreement with a binding, workable price-determination method.
A buyer who cannot fund the promised purchase
The agreed price is $400,000. The buyer has only $80,000 available, the required $320,000 loan is denied and no other funding is available. Assume the buyer is otherwise still obligated and no contractual release or excuse applies.
- The supplied funding gap is $400,000 − $80,000 = $320,000.
- Wanting the property does not establish an ability to pay that amount.
Answer: The buyer has not established ability to perform. This exercise does not say every loan denial is a breach or overrides an actual financing contingency.
The seller prevents the closing
Assume an enforceable agreement and a buyer with available approved financing and verified closing funds, ready to fulfil the remaining terms. The seller refuses to schedule the closing and prevents the required exchange. No exclusive-remedy limit or other obstacle is supplied.
- Identify what the seller prevented.
- Keep the buyer’s proven financial ability separate from physical tender at a closing the seller refused to arrange.
Answer: The prevented act can be excused on the proven facts while the buyer seeks specific performance. Do not conclude that a seller’s refusal excuses every buyer obligation or proves funding that does not exist.
A valid sole-remedy limit
Assume the complete, enforceable agreement clearly restricts the buyer to return of the deposit for the stated seller default. The limitation remains effective; no modification, estoppel, contrary law or other basis for avoiding it applies.
- The exercise supplies a genuine and effective sole-remedy restriction.
- The uniqueness of the land does not silently delete that restriction.
Answer: Apply the stated return-of-deposit remedy. This differs from a contract that merely mentions damages without making them exclusive.
Liquidated damages without an exclusive limit
Assume an enforceable agreement includes a valid liquidated-damages provision but, on the complete agreement and applicable law, does not make it the exclusive remedy or otherwise bar specific performance. All other equitable requirements are satisfied.
- An agreed damages provision and a limit on remedies are separate issues.
- The exercise expressly supplies the absence of a barring restriction.
Answer: The clause’s mere presence does not prevent a request for specific performance as the applicable alternative. It does not authorise collecting the property and duplicate compensation for the same loss.
Money that completes the performance remedy
Assume a court orders the agreed conveyance after an unjustified delay. It separately finds appropriate, proven incidental compensation of $6,000, without any applicable contractual bar or duplication.
- The decree provides the promised performance.
- The additional $6,000 is expressly limited to proper incidental compensation found by the court.
Answer: Performance and appropriate incidental compensation can coexist. Do not infer that every expected business opportunity, projected profit or claimed expense is recoverable.
Temporary protection is not the final award
A court grants a preliminary injunction preserving the situation while a specific-performance claim is litigated. The exercise supplies the separate grounds for that interim order but no final merits judgment.
- Temporary protection can precede a final decision.
- The claimant still has to establish entitlement to the final remedy.
Answer: The injunction does not, by itself, award the deed or finally prove the performance claim. Seeking relief alone also does not automatically produce that protection.
Related misconduct and delay need their own facts
In Case A, the party seeking equitable relief procured the disputed sale through fraud connected with that transaction. In Case B, a claimant knew of the claim, unreasonably delayed pursuing it and thereby prejudiced the opposing party. Assume the stated facts are proved rather than merely alleged.
- Case A concerns related misconduct relevant to unclean hands.
- Case B supplies both lack of diligence and resulting prejudice relevant to laches.
Answer: Either case supplies an equitable issue that can defeat the requested relief. An unrelated past mistake or the passage of a stated number of days alone is a different set of facts. This example does not set a litigation deadline or decide a later purchaser’s priority.
A genuine electronic signature with missing authority
Assume the parties agreed to electronic transactions and the broker genuinely applied an attributable electronic signature. The broker has authority only to market the property and no authority satisfying the Frauds Act to execute the owner’s sale agreement. No owner signature, ratification or applicable exception is supplied.
- Authenticity and electronic recognition are supplied.
- Authority to bind the owner remains missing under the stated facts.
Answer: Electronic form does not cure that authority gap. The buyer has not established an enforceable owner sale obligation merely by proving who clicked the signature button.
Mistakes to avoid
- Every real estate breach automatically produces specific performance. Establish the agreement, claimant’s position, opposing breach, contract limits and equitable circumstances.
- A court can pick a fair price when the parties never agreed. The requested order must enforce a sufficiently definite existing bargain.
- Every oral land agreement is void. The writing rule concerns enforceability and has qualified exceptions.
- An electronic signature cures every defect. Electronic recognition does not establish authority, assent or missing material terms.
- The buyer wants the property, so ability is proved. Available funds and the required financing must support ability under the actual facts.
- The seller prevented closing, so the buyer need not prove anything. The prevented act and the claimant’s performance requirements remain distinct.
- Any damages clause bars equity. A damages provision alone differs from an effective exclusive-remedy limit.
- The word exclusive must appear to restrict remedies. The complete agreement can clearly show exclusivity without that exact word.
- A performance lawsuit lets the broker release the deposit to its client. Apply the separate escrow authority and dispute rules.
- Any money alongside the deed is double recovery. Appropriate incidental compensation can complete relief; duplicate compensation is different.
Check your understanding
These are original teaching questions, not recalled or predicted PSI questions. Answer first, then explain why the other choices fail.
1. Which remedy seeks an order requiring the promised conveyance?
- Specific performance
- A new bargain chosen by the court
- An automatic commission forfeiture
- Rescission in every case
Show answer and explanation
Answer: A. Specific performance
Specific performance seeks fulfilment of an existing enforceable agreement. The other requirements and contract limitations still apply.
2. Which fact must be established before a court can enforce the promised sale by specific performance?
- The buyer has already won a temporary order
- The seller received a higher offer
- The broker prefers the buyer
- A valid, binding and sufficiently definite enforceable agreement
Show answer and explanation
Answer: D. A valid, binding and sufficiently definite enforceable agreement
The court needs an enforceable agreement with sufficiently certain terms. A preference, higher offer or interim ruling does not create one.
3. In the future-price-negotiation case, what is the problem?
- No binding price or workable determination method is supplied
- The property is identified
- The note is signed
- Every price determined after signing is invalid
Show answer and explanation
Answer: A. No binding price or workable determination method is supplied
The exercise leaves a material term for future agreement with no established method. A workable agreed mechanism presents different facts.
4. Under the general signed-evidence rule, whose signature is relevant?
- Only the broker’s, regardless of authority
- The party to be charged, or a lawfully authorised agent meeting the statute’s written-authority requirement
- Only a neighbour’s
- Only a witness’s
Show answer and explanation
Answer: B. The party to be charged, or a lawfully authorised agent meeting the statute’s written-authority requirement
The Frauds Act identifies the party against whom enforcement is sought and the qualified agent alternative. It does not require the buyer alone to sign in every enforcement action.
5. What does electronic form establish by itself?
- All contract conditions disappear
- It is not a valid reason alone to deny the record or signature legal effect; other requirements still matter
- Every emailed price creates a completed contract
- Every typed name proves authority
Show answer and explanation
Answer: B. It is not a valid reason alone to deny the record or signature legal effect; other requirements still matter
UETA recognises qualifying electronic records and signatures. Agreement to use electronic means, attribution, assent, authority and other applicable law remain relevant.
6. Does a listing agreement, by itself, establish a broker’s power to sign the owner’s sale contract?
- Yes, in every transaction
- No; authority to market and authority to bind the owner must be distinguished
- Only the buyer can answer
- Yes, if a deposit is offered
Show answer and explanation
Answer: B. No; authority to market and authority to bind the owner must be distinguished
Do not infer authority to execute the sale contract merely from a marketing role. The statute’s signed writing and written agent-authority requirements need their actual facts.
7. In the $400,000 purchase case, the buyer has $80,000 and no available loan or substitute funds. What is the unfunded amount?
- $80,000
- $0
- $320,000
- $480,000
Show answer and explanation
Answer: C. $320,000
Subtract $80,000 from $400,000. The $320,000 gap illustrates the stipulated lack of ability; actual contingency and excuse provisions remain separate.
8. What does a seller’s prevention of the closing necessarily eliminate?
- The need to establish financial ability
- It does not automatically eliminate those requirements; the prevented act must be analysed separately
- Every condition in the agreement
- The need for an enforceable agreement
Show answer and explanation
Answer: B. It does not automatically eliminate those requirements; the prevented act must be analysed separately
Supported readiness can coexist with excused tender or another prevented act. Obstruction is not a substitute for all remaining proof.
9. Which outcome follows from the expressly valid sole-deposit-refund restriction in the example?
- Assume the word exclusive is legally required in every contract
- Apply that supplied exclusive remedy
- Ignore it because the property is land
- Invent a new damages amount
Show answer and explanation
Answer: B. Apply that supplied exclusive remedy
The exercise expressly makes the restriction enforceable, effective and applicable without a basis for avoiding it. Land’s uniqueness does not erase those assumptions.
10. Does a liquidated-damages clause alone necessarily bar specific performance?
- No; determine whether the agreement and applicable law actually restrict the remedy
- Yes, whenever earnest money exists
- No, because every contractual remedy limit is invalid
- Yes, whatever the complete contract says
Show answer and explanation
Answer: A. No; determine whether the agreement and applicable law actually restrict the remedy
A damages provision alone is not the same as an effective sole-remedy limitation. Read the complete contract and the applicable equitable requirements.
11. Can appropriate incidental compensation accompany a performance decree?
- Yes, where justified for complete relief and not barred or duplicative
- Only if no sale contract exists
- Never
- Always, for every claimed business opportunity
Show answer and explanation
Answer: A. Yes, where justified for complete relief and not barred or duplicative
The cited Illinois opinion recognises compensation incidental to delay. It distinguishes that relief from every asserted lost opportunity and does not authorise duplicate recovery.
12. What did the preliminary injunction alone establish in the temporary-protection example?
- An automatic right to all claimed damages
- Final entitlement to specific performance
- Interim protection under its own requirements, with the final claim still to be decided
- Final ownership of the property
Show answer and explanation
Answer: C. Interim protection under its own requirements, with the final claim still to be decided
A preliminary injunction preserves matters pending the decision. It is not the final specific-performance merits judgment.
13. Why does land’s uniqueness matter?
- It converts every oral statement into an enforceable agreement
- It deletes all contractual remedy limits
- It proves that every buyer can pay
- It supports why substitute money may provide inadequate relief
Show answer and explanation
Answer: D. It supports why substitute money may provide inadequate relief
Uniqueness supports the equitable-remedy rationale. It does not dispense with the actual agreement, performance, remedy and fairness questions.
14. Does filing a specific-performance demand let the broker decide who receives contested earnest money?
- Only the higher offer matters
- No; the applicable escrow release and dispute rules remain separate
- Yes, whenever the broker expects its client to win
- Yes, if the broker’s client filed first
Show answer and explanation
Answer: B. No; the applicable escrow release and dispute rules remain separate
The broker does not decide the court claim or use that expectation as release authority. Follow an authorised route under the actual escrow rules.
15. How does rescission differ from specific performance?
- Rescission seeks to undo the agreement; specific performance seeks its promised performance
- Specific performance cancels every obligation
- Both always transfer the deed immediately
- Rescission always means a fixed penalty
Show answer and explanation
Answer: A. Rescission seeks to undo the agreement; specific performance seeks its promised performance
The requested result is different. Each remedy still requires its own grounds and proper application.
16. In the supplied better-offer case, what does the higher offer itself give the seller?
- A statewide cancellation right
- A right to keep every deposit
- No cancellation right merely from that fact
- Authority to force the first buyer to match it
Show answer and explanation
Answer: C. No cancellation right merely from that fact
The case assumes an enforceable agreement and no applicable release. A better offer alone does not rewrite those obligations.
17. Which misconduct is relevant to the unclean-hands issue described here?
- Every unrelated mistake in the claimant’s life
- Fraud or bad faith connected with the transaction for which equitable relief is requested
- Only the colour of the contract paper
- Only the seller’s preference for a new buyer
Show answer and explanation
Answer: B. Fraud or bad faith connected with the transaction for which equitable relief is requested
The cited equitable discussion connects the misconduct to the transaction under consideration. It is not a universal punishment for unrelated conduct.
18. What does the stated laches example require beyond a passage of time?
- Only a higher property value
- Only a fixed thirty-day interval
- Only a missed phone call
- Lack of diligence and resulting prejudice to the opposing party
Show answer and explanation
Answer: D. Lack of diligence and resulting prejudice to the opposing party
The Illinois Supreme Court identifies the two elements and distinguishes laches from merely counting time. Actual limitation periods and contract notices are separate.
19. The broker’s electronic signature is authentic, but the supplied facts establish no authority to bind the owner and no applicable exception. What follows?
- Authenticity automatically creates authority
- A listing role always supplies sale-signing authority
- The buyer has not established the owner’s enforceable sale obligation merely from the signature
- Every electronic record is invalid
Show answer and explanation
Answer: C. The buyer has not established the owner’s enforceable sale obligation merely from the signature
The case distinguishes an attributable signature from legal authority. Neither authentic execution nor electronic recognition manufactures the missing authority.
20. Which statement best distinguishes filing a claim from winning it?
- The demand itself transfers the deed
- An interim order always decides the final remedy
- Pleading a claim and proving entitlement at the relevant stage are different tasks
- A complaint automatically proves every alleged fact
Show answer and explanation
Answer: C. Pleading a claim and proving entitlement at the relevant stage are different tasks
The published opinions distinguish the elements and the procedural stage. In particular, preliminary protection is not the final merits award.
Common questions
What is specific performance in real estate?
A court-ordered equitable remedy requiring performance of an enforceable agreement. In a sale dispute, the requested order can require the promised conveyance. It is different from simply receiving money instead of the sale. The claimant still needs the contractual and equitable grounds for that relief.
What does Illinois require for specific performance?
The cited published decisions identify an enforceable agreement, the claimant’s compliance or supported readiness, willingness and ability to perform, and the other party’s failure or refusal. The agreement must be sufficiently definite for the court to order the promised performance. Contractual remedy limits and equitable circumstances also matter; alleging these points is different from proving them at the required stage.
Why is specific performance associated with land?
Land’s uniqueness helps explain why money may not provide adequate relief for a failed conveyance. Illinois decisions recognise that rationale. It does not follow that every real estate disagreement produces a decree: the agreement, claimant’s position, opposing breach, remedy terms and equities still need examination.
Can a seller be required to sell after accepting a better offer?
The first buyer can seek specific performance if the original agreement remains enforceable and the other requirements are met. A higher offer alone does not create a cancellation right. Whether a real buyer obtains the decree depends on the actual contract, performance, conditions, limits, evidence and equitable circumstances.
Can a seller seek specific performance against a buyer?
The remedy is not defined as a buyer-only remedy. A seller seeking to require the buyer’s promised performance still needs an enforceable agreement, the seller’s own compliance or supported ability to perform, a buyer default and the required equitable grounds. Read any clause that makes the deposit the seller’s sole remedy. Do not infer an automatic right to force every defaulting buyer to close.
Must an Illinois land-sale agreement be on paper?
Not necessarily. The general land-sale signed-evidence rule remains relevant, but Illinois’s Uniform Electronic Transactions Act recognises qualifying electronic records and signatures. Agreement to transact electronically, attribution and other applicable law matter. An electronic platform does not cure missing assent, an indefinite bargain or a lack of authority to bind the owner.
Is every oral land-sale agreement void?
No. The Frauds Act generally creates a signed-writing or memorandum requirement for enforcement, with qualified exceptions and other legal issues that require their actual facts. Do not turn that general rule into a claim that every oral bargain is void or that payment alone always proves an exception. A short planned closing period is not, by itself, a blanket land-sale exemption.
What does ready, willing and able mean?
The claimant’s position must support actual performance of the promised obligations. For a buyer, wanting the property is not the same as having the required funds and available financing. The question’s facts may establish ability, leave it unproved or negate it. Read financing contingencies and other conditions separately rather than assuming a loan denial always has the same effect.
Must the buyer tender money when the seller prevents the closing?
A prevented act can be excused on the proven facts while a ready, willing and able buyer seeks the remedy. In Schwinder, the court relied on the actual agreement, possession arrangement, financing and down payment, and the seller’s refusal to arrange closing. That holding does not excuse a buyer who lacked the means to perform or erase every contractual obligation.
Does a liquidated-damages clause stop a specific-performance claim?
Its presence alone does not necessarily do so. Determine whether the complete agreement and applicable law make a remedy exclusive or otherwise restrict the requested relief. A valid sole-remedy provision is different from merely naming an agreed damages amount. Effective amendments and established equitable issues can also affect the result; no universal outcome follows from the clause’s heading.
Does a remedy clause need the word exclusive to be exclusive?
No. Lobo explains that the complete contract can clearly show an intended sole remedy without that exact word. Conversely, listing remedies does not automatically make the list exclusive. Read the whole provision and related provisions, the relevant default and any effective modification instead of relying on a single vocabulary clue.
Can the court award money as well as the property?
Appropriate incidental compensation may accompany specific performance where needed to make the claimant whole. Lobo distinguishes compensation attributable to the delayed closing from every claimed business opportunity. Contract terms, proof, causation and the character of the requested relief matter. Do not assume an automatic award of all projected profits or duplicate compensation for the same loss.
Is a preliminary injunction the same as specific performance?
No. Interim protection has its own requirements and preserves matters while the final claim is decided. Happy R Securities addressed an appeal concerning a preliminary injunction; its discussion did not turn that order into a final specific-performance judgment. A lawsuit or demand alone also does not automatically freeze title or transfer the deed.
Can the broker release earnest money because the buyer demands specific performance?
A demand alone is not release authority. The substantive contract claim and the broker’s escrow duties are separate. Where the broker has written notice or actual knowledge of a controversy, the applicable dispute procedures matter. Proper agreed release, court-related and other authorised routes have their conditions. The broker does not choose a winner or release money merely to collect its own commission.
Can unclean hands or laches defeat specific performance?
Potentially. Unclean hands concerns relevant misconduct, fraud or bad faith connected with the transaction for which relief is sought. It does not mean that any unrelated past error automatically bars equity. Laches concerns lack of diligence and resulting prejudice from the delay, not simply the passage of a fixed number of days.
The cited Illinois Supreme Court opinion states the general laches principles in a foreclosure-judgment challenge, not a specific-performance suit. It is used here for those principles, not as a land-sale deadline or a complete rule for later purchasers. Actual limitation periods, contractual notice and cure provisions, and third-party rights need their own review.
How long do I have to seek specific performance in Illinois?
There is no single number of days supplied by this glossary. An actual matter requires the applicable limitation period, accrual and any tolling questions, the agreement’s notice and cure provisions, and equitable issues such as laches. These clocks are different. Do not take a thirty-day cure clause quoted in one lawsuit as a statewide filing deadline or assume that an unexpired limitation period resolves every delay defence.
What should I look for in an exam question?
Start with the requested result: the agreed deed, substitute money, an agreed damages amount, undoing the agreement or temporary protection. Then identify the enforceable terms, whose performance is at issue, the actual funding and conditions, the refusal, and any remedy restriction or equitable obstacle. Change one of those facts and the answer can change. These original practice questions are not official PSI items or a validated prediction of an exam result.
Which sources support this October 2026 review?
The page uses published Illinois court opinions for the identified remedy principles and the current identified Frauds Act and Uniform Electronic Transactions Act text for writing, electronic recognition and attribution. The earlier Electronic Commerce Security Act was repealed in 2021; it is not the current signature authority used here. Selected judicial passages and explicit reuse of prior primary readings are identified in the evidence record.
The record does not claim a complete review of every Illinois decision, every writing-rule exception, all electronic-transaction procedures or later-purchaser priorities. A source’s publication year is not the page’s review date. The original scenarios teach the stated rules on supplied facts rather than approving actual contracts or litigation choices.
Keep practising
Your next practice step
Put contracts into practice
Check formation, status and the parties' obligations before choosing a remedy.
These web resources are free. The app has a separate free starter tier and optional paid full access.
Official sources and scope
Reviewed October 27, 2026. Published Illinois judicial decisions support the remedy discussion; current identified statutory text supports the writing and electronic-execution rules. The evidence record distinguishes the selected passages actually read from explicit reuse of earlier primary readings. This is an exam explanation, not an exhaustive case-law update, a title opinion or an assessment of an actual claim.
- PSI June 24, 2026: Contracts formation and enforcement topics
- 740 ILCS 80/2: signed evidence and written agent authority
- 815 ILCS 333/5: agreement to electronic transactions
- 815 ILCS 333/7: electronic writing and signature recognition
- 815 ILCS 333/9: attribution and effect
- 815 ILCS 333/20.87: repeal of the earlier electronic-commerce statute
- Schwinder v. Austin Bank: readiness, prevention and remedy provisions
- Lobo IV v. V Land Chicago Canal: remedy limits and incidental compensation
- Happy R Securities v. Agri-Sources: land, interim protection and equity
- PNC Bank v. Kusmierz: laches requires diligence and prejudice
- 68 Ill. Adm. Code 1450.750: escrow, transfers, release, records and supervision
- Whitelaw v. Brady, 3 Ill. 2d 583 (1954): option structure and writing
This is exam preparation, not advice for a specific transaction. State law and the applicable facts control. Our editorial and corrections process explains how to report an issue.