Arizona courts will not “order specific performance if the parties did not agree on one or more ‘important, essential or material terms.’” Offerman v. Granada, LLC, No. 1 CA-CV 16-0407, Ariz. App. 11-14-2017. In this recent case, Offerman leased property from Granada, with an option to purchase at the end of the lease and with option terms providing for the parties to agree on the appraiser to set the purchase price and including some of the lease payments in the purchase price. At the end of the lease, Offerman attempted to exercise the option, but Granada ignored efforts to agree on the appraiser and instead unilaterally offered a purchase price. Offerman sued to enforce his option. The Superior Court agreed with Offerman and held a hearing to establish the terms not yet negotiated between the parties, such as how to select an appraiser if the parties do not agree, the title company, date for close of escrow, etc. Granada appealed, arguing that the option did not contain terms specific enough for specific performance. The Court of Appeals agreed with Granada that it is not the court’s role to set the terms of the contract. The Court of Appeals offered no opinion whether the terms were sufficient for Offerman to pursue an action for damages for breach of contract, but the remedy of specific performance requires specificity. Therefore, to enforce an option in a lease/purchase, the lessee/purchaser may want to attach a full purchase agreement to the lease, to set forth the specific terms to enforce if the lessor/seller refuses to let the lessee/purchaser exercise the option.