In Tierney V

In Tierney v. Four H Land Company Limited Partnership , the court held that

A) the district court was correct for not ordering specific performance because the burdens on Four H and Western outweighed the benefits to the Tierneys.
B) the 1998 CUP and the agreement that set forth the core requirements for reclamation of the property were not sufficiently certain and definite to describe what was required of Four H and Western.
C) specific performance was an appropriate remedy for Four H's and Western's breach, and the district court should have ordered it.
D) specific performance, as an equitable remedy, is not appropriate for a lawsuit concerning real property.