This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Contracts/Specific performance: Difference between revisions
en>Cyclopaedic (Removed para not about specific perfomance and specific to USA; qualified another by ref to USA) |
en>Cyclopaedic (Improved language; is all this correct, in all jurisdictions?) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
In the law of [[Remedy|remedies]], a '''specific performance''' is a demand of a party to perform a specific act. While ''specific performance'' can be in the form of any type of forced action, it is usually used to complete a previously established transaction. It is the opposite of an [[injunction]]. Under the [[common law]], specific performance was not a remedy, with the rights of a litigant being limited to the collection of damages. However, the courts of [[equity]] developed the remedy of specific performance as damages often could not adequately compensate someone for the inability to own a particular piece of [[real property]], land being regarded as unique. Specific performance is often guaranteed through the remedy of a writ of possession, giving the plaintiff the right to take possession of the property in dispute. However, in the case of personal performance contracts, it may also be ensured through the threat of proceedings for [[contempt of court]]. | In the law of [[Remedy|remedies]], a '''specific performance''' is a demand of a party to perform a specific act. While ''specific performance'' can be in the form of any type of forced action, it is usually used to complete a previously established transaction. It is the opposite of an [[injunction]]. Under the [[common law]], specific performance was not a remedy, with the rights of a litigant being limited to the collection of damages. However, the courts of [[equity]] developed the remedy of specific performance as damages often could not adequately compensate someone for the inability to own a particular piece of [[real property]], land being regarded as unique. Specific performance is often guaranteed through the remedy of a writ of possession, giving the plaintiff the right to take possession of the property in dispute. However, in the case of personal performance contracts, it may also be ensured through the threat of proceedings for [[contempt of court]]. | ||
==Use of | ==Use of specific performance== | ||
Orders for specific performance are granted when damages are not an adequate remedy, and in some specific cases such as land sale. | |||
Even in cases where | Orders for specific performance are discretionary, as with all equitable remedies. | ||
# | |||
# the contract was | Even in cases where specific performance could be awarded, the judge may not order it if: | ||
# the | # specific performance would cause severe hardship | ||
# | # the contract was unconscienable | ||
# | # the claimant has misbehaved (no clean hands) | ||
# specific performance is impossible | |||
# performance consists of a personal service | |||
# the contract is too vague | # the contract is too vague | ||
Revision as of 14:39, May 30, 2006
Definition of Specific performance
In the law of remedies, a specific performance is a demand of a party to perform a specific act. While specific performance can be in the form of any type of forced action, it is usually used to complete a previously established transaction. It is the opposite of an injunction. Under the common law, specific performance was not a remedy, with the rights of a litigant being limited to the collection of damages. However, the courts of equity developed the remedy of specific performance as damages often could not adequately compensate someone for the inability to own a particular piece of real property, land being regarded as unique. Specific performance is often guaranteed through the remedy of a writ of possession, giving the plaintiff the right to take possession of the property in dispute. However, in the case of personal performance contracts, it may also be ensured through the threat of proceedings for contempt of court.
Use of specific performance
Orders for specific performance are granted when damages are not an adequate remedy, and in some specific cases such as land sale.
Orders for specific performance are discretionary, as with all equitable remedies.
Even in cases where specific performance could be awarded, the judge may not order it if:
- specific performance would cause severe hardship
- the contract was unconscienable
- the claimant has misbehaved (no clean hands)
- specific performance is impossible
- performance consists of a personal service
- the contract is too vague
Examples
In practice, specific performance is most often used as a remedy in transactions regarding land, such as in the sale of land where the vendor refuses to convey title.
However, the limits of specific performance in other contexts are narrow. Moreover, performance that is based on the personal judgment or abilities of the party on which the demand is made is rarely ordered by the court. The reason behind it is that the forced party will often perform below the party's regular standard when it is in the party's ability to do so. Monetary damages are usually given instead.
Traditionally, equity would only grant specific performance with respect to contracts involving chattels where the goods were unique in character, such as art, heirlooms, and the like. The rationale behind this was that with goods being fungible, the aggrieved party had an adequate remedy in damages for the other party's non-performance.
In the United States, Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code displaces the traditional rule in an attempt to adjust the law of sales of goods to the realities of the modern commercial marketplace. If the goods are identified to the contract for sale and in the possession of the seller, a court may order that the goods be delivered over to the buyer upon payment of the price. This is termed replevin. In addition, the Code allows a court to order specific performance where "the goods are unique or in other proper circumstances", leaving the question of what circumstances are proper to be developed by case law.
