Under merger in property transactions, which statement best describes the availability of remedies?

• A. Merger always allows both damages and specific performance
• B. Damages may suffice, and if equity fails one may sue under common law; damages and specific performance are rarely both available
• C. Specific performance is always the preferred remedy
• D. All remedies are unaffected by merger

Answer: (B)

When a contract for the sale of land merges into the deed, the remedies available shift toward what’s practical under the merged instrument, with the choice driven by whether damages can adequately compensate and whether equity would grant specific performance. Often, monetary damages are enough to fix the loss from a breach, so damages become the primary remedy after merger. If damages aren’t adequate or specific performance would be appropriate, a court in equity might order specific performance, but you don’t get both remedies simultaneously in most cases. If equity doesn’t grant the equitable relief, the claimant can fall back on a common-law damages claim. So, damages may suffice, and where equity fails, you can sue for damages under common law; and it’s rare for both damages and specific performance to be awarded together.