In De Huy, the Florida Supreme Court held:
[I]t is the duty of a purchaser who is not in possession, if he would
invoke the aid of a court of equity, when he is put upon notice that the
vendor cannot or will not deliver a good title as he contracted to do, to
elect with reasonable promptness whether he will seek by suit for
specific performance the conveyance of such title as the latter can
convey, with abatement in the purchase price where appropriate, or
whether he will resort to an action at law for his damages for breach
of the contract, or whether, on the other hand, he will exercise his
right to consider the contract abandoned.
- - - - - - -
When such party fails to take action to enforce his equitable rights
within a reasonable time under all the circumstances after he is on
notice that the other party will not perform, such failure would
ordinarily indicate that the dilatory party is thereafter in fact
exercising his option to consider the contract abandoned by reason of
the default or rescission of the other party.
118 So. at 163-64. The Second District Court of Appeals applied De Huy in
holding that a party under a real estate sales contract must act with reasonable
promptness if it desires to seek specific performance. Shirley, 123 So.2d at 270-
71. Likewise, the Third District Court of Appeal held that “an unreasonable delay
by the purchasers, after the closing date, was sound basis for the trial court’s denial
of their claim for specific performance.” Siegel, 365 So.2d 1041, 1042 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1979).
The issue of whether a buyer has a duty to act with reasonable promptness in
seeking specific performance is not only material to the outcome of this case, but
also to the Florida real estate market. Limitation of remedies clauses as set forth in