In such an action this Court will examine the record and weigh the evidence, but will sustain the trial court's judgment unless clearly against the weight of the evidence, or contrary to law or established principles of equity. See, e.g., Ionic Petroleum, Okla., 411 P.2d 492 (1966); Campbell v. Johnson, 131 Okla. 79, 267 P. 661 (1926). The judgment is affirmed.

Whether a contract is abandoned is a question of fact, to be determined by the court from all the facts and circumstances of the particular case. Campbell v. Johnson, 131 Okla. 79, 267 P. 661; Hoodenpyl v. Guinn, 170 Okla. 78, 38 P.2d 510; Nelson v. Hamra, 127 Okla. 141, 259 P. 838; Garrett v. Reinhart, 169 Okla. 249, 36 P.2d 884. Specific performance of a contract is not a matter of right, but a question of equity, and the application is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the trial court and controlled by the principles of equity in full consideration of the circumstances in each case.

We are precluded from consideration of the question of fraud because the findings of the trial court are supported by substantial evidence. Certainly, they are not against the clear weight of the evidence; so that whether we treat the case as one of equitable or legal cognizance, we are bound by the findings of fact. Campbell v. Johnson, 131 Okla. 79, 267 P. 661; Dustin Gro. Feed Co. v. Lucas, 91 Okla. 11, 215 P. 417; Anderson v. Moore, 118 Okla. 242, 247 P. 391. The only remaining question to be considered is the contention of the plaintiffs in error that by reason of a so-called "mutual rescission" of the contract of sale of real estate the Harmans were entitled to recover all of the money actually paid under the contract of sale.

"The question of rescission is clearly one of fact that is unresolved by the present state of the record. `Whether a contract is rescinded or abandoned is ordinarily a question of fact to be determined by the court or jury from all the facts and circumstances of the particular case.' Campbell v. Johnson, 131 Okla. 79, 267 P. 661 (1928). Summary judgment should be granted only `if it appears that there is no substantial controversy as to any material fact . . . .' 12 O.S. 1971, ch. 2, App., Rule 13.