b. Whether Westcliff Is Entitled to Specific Performance Paciwest contends that Westcliff is not entitled to specific performance because Warner Alan’s wrongful conduct in sending the price reduction letter is what caused the failure of the transaction and because Westcliff failed to tender performance, which Paciwest claims is a prerequisite to specific performance in this case, because Westcliff did not tender the correct purchase price at closing. A contract is subject to specific performance if it contains the essential terms of a contract, expressed with such certainty and clarity that it may be understood without recourse to parol evidence. Johnson v. Snell, 504 S.W.2d 397, 398 (Tex.1973); Rus-Ann Dev., Inc. v. ECGC, Inc., 222 S.W.3d 921, 927-28 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2007, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). We have already determined that the summary
holding that lack of closing date in option contract did not preclude enforcement by specific performance holding that the date of sale for an installment contract was the date of contract formation not the date of the last payment due holding that date of breach was date of closing where defendants do not assert any other valid reason why delivery of the receipts was delayed past the date of the closing holding that prevailing party was entitled to attorneys fees under an option contract which had expired prior to litigation because the parties were litigating their performance under the terms of the contract holding that contract providing commission was to be paid within 72 hours of closing did not condition the payment of commission on the closing