In Brief
The Supreme Court addressed whether respondents, who claimed to be assignees of an original 1986 property sale agreement, could compel specific performance against appellants (the original sellers). The Court held that in personal contracts like property sales, assignment without the promisee's express consent is invalid. The 1987 agreements did not constitute a valid assignment; they were independent agreements substituting the respondents for original vendees. Finding no evidence that appellants consented to the assignment, the Court ruled respondents had no contractual privity with appellants and thus could not seek specific performance. The appeal was allowed, though the Court found the original parties had colluded to frustrate the respondents' legitimate expectations and awarded compensation for loss of opportunity and inconvenience suffered.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.