at its option, may “require that Seller specifically perform its obligations.” Yet Potomac Creek would limit Stanford’s remedies to damages. Although we agree that expectation damages can be an adequate remedy in some cases, they will not achieve substantial justice where the benefit of the bargain to the prevailing party is difficult to calculate or realize by the payment of money. As Judge Gasch noted in the context of breach of an agreement to lease space at the then-new Tysons Corner shopping center, “money damages would in no way compensate the plaintiff for loss of the right to participate in the shopping center enterprise and for the almost incalculable future advantages that might accrue to it as a result of extending its operations.” See City Stores Co., 266 F.Supp. at 776 (<HOLDING>). In view of the presumptive suitability of
holding as a matter of law that mere fact that a contract definite in material respects contains some terms which are subject to further negotiation  will not bar a decree for specific performance if in the courts discretion specific performance should be granted holding that if the contract can be given a definite and certain meaning or interpretation the contract is not ambiguous and will be construed by the court as a matter of law recognizing that a buyer may sue for specific performance of a realestate contract holding that a contract is not effective until the performance of the conditions precedent and that a condition precedent calls for the happening of some event or the performance of some act after the terms of the contract have been agreed on before the contract shall be binding on the parties holding that an action for specific performance lies in equity