PrepTest 79, Section 4, Question 27

A remedy that courts sometimes use in disputes involving a breach of contract is simply to compel the participants in the contract to do precisely what they have agreed to do. Specific performance, as this approach is called, can be used as an alternative to monetary damagesÔøΩthat is, to requiring the one who has violated the agreement to pay a specified amount of money in compensation for the loss that is incurred or the wrong that is suffered. But while there are some cases for which specific performance can be a better alternative than monetary damages, there are many instances in which it is clearly not a suitable remedy.

Whether or not specific performance is an appropriate remedy in a case depends on the particular characteristics of that case. It is often the only reasonable remedy when monetary damages could not adequately compensate the one who has been harmed by the breach of contract. For example, a contract may provide for one party to sell some item of personal property that is unique or of such subjective importance to the buyer that there is no way to assign an accurate financial measure of the buyer's loss in not possessing the item. When the promised seller in such a case refuses to complete the sale, the best remedy would be to order that the contract be fulfilled exactly according to its terms.

Nevertheless, in many cases monetary payment can adequately compensate for the refusal to fulfill the terms of a contract, and thus the court commonly need not consider ordering specific performance. In fact, in some types of cases, court-enforced performance of the contract would actually be detrimental to those involved in the dispute and thus should be avoided. This most often occurs when a contract calls for a service to be performed and the one who has previously agreed to perform the service now refuses to do soÔøΩespecially if a contract has been broken through someone's refusal to undertake employment as promised. The most compelling reasons against enforcement of contracts in such cases have to do with the kind of coercion that enforcement would necessitate. Forcing someone to perform a service in association with, and especially under the direction of, another who has become an antagonist can, at the very least, heighten dissatisfaction and intensify psychological friction. Even if a court had the resources necessary to ensure that such a contract would be enforced according to its terms, it would often do better to avoid imposing such uncomfortable conditions. Awarding monetary compensation where possible in such cases permits the court to steer clear of entanglement in troublesome aspects of the disputed relationship while still providing relief to the wronged party.

A remedy that courts sometimes use in disputes involving a breach of contract is simply to compel the participants in the contract to do precisely what they have agreed to do. Specific performance, as this approach is called, can be used as an alternative to monetary damagesÔøΩthat is, to requiring the one who has violated the agreement to pay a specified amount of money in compensation for the loss that is incurred or the wrong that is suffered. But while there are some cases for which specific performance can be a better alternative than monetary damages, there are many instances in which it is clearly not a suitable remedy.

Whether or not specific performance is an appropriate remedy in a case depends on the particular characteristics of that case. It is often the only reasonable remedy when monetary damages could not adequately compensate the one who has been harmed by the breach of contract. For example, a contract may provide for one party to sell some item of personal property that is unique or of such subjective importance to the buyer that there is no way to assign an accurate financial measure of the buyer's loss in not possessing the item. When the promised seller in such a case refuses to complete the sale, the best remedy would be to order that the contract be fulfilled exactly according to its terms.

Nevertheless, in many cases monetary payment can adequately compensate for the refusal to fulfill the terms of a contract, and thus the court commonly need not consider ordering specific performance. In fact, in some types of cases, court-enforced performance of the contract would actually be detrimental to those involved in the dispute and thus should be avoided. This most often occurs when a contract calls for a service to be performed and the one who has previously agreed to perform the service now refuses to do soÔøΩespecially if a contract has been broken through someone's refusal to undertake employment as promised. The most compelling reasons against enforcement of contracts in such cases have to do with the kind of coercion that enforcement would necessitate. Forcing someone to perform a service in association with, and especially under the direction of, another who has become an antagonist can, at the very least, heighten dissatisfaction and intensify psychological friction. Even if a court had the resources necessary to ensure that such a contract would be enforced according to its terms, it would often do better to avoid imposing such uncomfortable conditions. Awarding monetary compensation where possible in such cases permits the court to steer clear of entanglement in troublesome aspects of the disputed relationship while still providing relief to the wronged party.