Specific Performance CASES
In English law, specific performance is an equitable remedy compelling a party to fulfil their contractual obligations, typically used when monetary compensation (damages) would be inadequate.
Definition and Principles
Specific performance involves a court order mandating exact compliance with contract terms, particularly applied in cases involving unique or rare items, such as land or specific goods.
Conditions for Granting
- Inadequacy of Damages: Monetary compensation must be insufficient to remedy the breach.
- Feasibility: Performance must be clearly defined and practically enforceable.
- Fairness: It must not cause undue hardship or injustice to the performing party.
Limitations
Courts generally avoid specific performance for personal services, ongoing supervision requirements, or vague and uncertain obligations.
Practical Importance
Understanding specific performance helps parties recognise potential consequences of breach, encouraging contract compliance, especially where unique assets are involved.
Home » Specific Performance
An actress, Bette Davis, contracted to work exclusively for Warner Bros. but then engaged with a rival studio. The court granted an injunction enforcing the negative covenant, preventing her from working for others, but refused to order specific performance. Facts The plaintiffs, Warner Brothers Pictures Inc., sought an injunction to restrain the defendant, the actress Bette Davis, from breaching her contract. In 1934, the defendant entered into a contract to provide her exclusive services as a motion picture actress to the plaintiffs for 52 weeks, with options for extension. The contract contained a positive covenant to render these exclusive services
A vendor described a property's tenant as 'most desirable', despite knowing the tenant was in rent arrears. The court held this was not mere opinion but a misrepresentation of fact, as the vendor impliedly stated facts to justify their opinion. Facts The plaintiffs (vendors) advertised a hotel for sale, stating in the particulars that it was let to Mr Fleck, ‘a most desirable tenant’. The defendants (purchasers) agreed to buy the property. Before completion, Mr Fleck, who had been struggling to pay his rent and was in arrears, went into liquidation. The defendants discovered this and refused to complete the
During a severe oil crisis, a petrol supplier terminated their contract. The buyer, who had no alternative source and faced business ruin, sought an injunction. The court granted it, effectively ordering specific performance for generic goods, because damages were an inadequate remedy. Facts In 1970, the plaintiffs, Sky Petroleum Ltd, entered into a 10-year contract with the defendants, V.I.P. Petroleum Ltd, to purchase all their required petrol and diesel fuel for their filling stations. In return, the defendants provided a loan to the plaintiffs. In the summer of 1973, during a major oil crisis, there was a severe shortage of
An owner granted a six-month option to purchase his house for £10,000, in return for a nominal £1 consideration. He later tried to revoke it. The court held the £1 consideration made the option a binding, irrevocable contract, which could be specifically enforced. Facts The defendant, Mr Scott, signed an agreement drafted by an agent for the plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Mountford. The agreement granted the plaintiffs an option to purchase Mr Scott’s house for £10,000, exercisable within six months. The plaintiffs’ agent paid Mr Scott £1 as consideration for this option agreement. Subsequently, before the six months had expired
Opera singer Johanna Wagner contracted to sing exclusively for Lumley's theatre but then agreed to perform for a rival. The court granted an injunction preventing her from singing elsewhere, enforcing the negative stipulation, despite being unable to compel specific performance. Facts The claimant, Benjamin Lumley, was the lessee of Her Majesty’s Theatre. He entered into a contract with the defendant, Johanna Wagner, a celebrated opera singer, for her to perform exclusively at his theatre for a three-month period. A key term of the agreement was a negative stipulation, stating that Mdlle. Wagner would not use her talents at any other
An offer to sell property was made in person. The buyer, who lived in another town, accepted by post. Before the acceptance arrived, the seller posted a revocation. The court held a binding contract was formed when the acceptance was posted. Facts On 7 July 1891, the defendants gave the claimant, Mr Henthorn, a note offering him the option to purchase certain houses for £750, with the offer to remain open for fourteen days. The claimant resided in Birkenhead, while the offer was made at the defendants’ office in Liverpool. The next day, 8 July, the defendants posted a letter
Argyll Stores prematurely closed a supermarket, breaching a 'keep open' covenant in its lease. The landlord sought specific performance. The House of Lords refused the order, confirming that courts will not compel a business to continue trading due to constant supervision difficulties. Facts The plaintiff, Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd (CIS), was the landlord of the Hillsborough Shopping Centre in Sheffield. In 1979, CIS leased the largest unit, the ‘anchor tenancy’, to the defendant, Argyll Stores, for a term of 35 years to operate a Safeway supermarket. A key clause in the lease, covenant 4(19), required Argyll ‘to keep the demised
Facts Mr Peter Beswick, a coal merchant, entered into a written agreement to sell his business to his nephew, the appellant Mr John Joseph Beswick. The agreement stipulated that the nephew would employ Peter Beswick as a consultant for the remainder of his life at a weekly salary. A crucial term of the contract was that upon Peter Beswick’s death, the nephew would pay an annuity of £5 per week to Peter Beswick’s widow, the respondent Mrs Ruth Beswick, for the rest of her life. The widow was not a party to this agreement. After Peter Beswick’s death, the nephew
