Specific Performance

Specific action MT311 Business Law Part I There argon quadruplet situations we have to review in terms of bettericular(prenominal) surgical procedure and possible breach of wince. First we must understand the elements of particularized executing thusly we can evaluate how they relate to each scenario. In some situations, damage are an inadequate exempt for a breach of contract honorable remedies include rescission and restitution, specific performance, and reformation (Miller & Jentz, 2009). Specific performance is an ingenuous remedy that requests the promised act be performed per the contract.This is non to be confused with any(prenominal) pecuniary exchange, rather that the contract be fulfilled as agree upon originally. Sometimes the performance is of more harbor than fiscal alter, which is why the specific performance remedy appealing for certain types of situations. Normally, however, specific performance leave alone not be granted unless the partys legal re medy (monetary restitution) is inadequate (Miller & Jentz, 2008). A favourable example of this clause is in regards to uncomparable or rare items that cannot just be bought on the open market.This is where monetary damages would not be a factor. The advantages of specific performance are that the non-breaching party is spared the hassle of collecting judgment, they do not need to set out up another contract, and the performance may be of more pry than monetary damages. The first scenario states Tarrington contracts to sell her house and lot to Rainier. Then, on finding another buyer willing to pay a higher barter for price, she refused to deed the property to Rainier.The specifics of this case are unkn cause however, based simply on the information provided I believe Rainier is entitled to specific performance as long as the property has not yet been sold. nonpareil element of real estate specific performance is that the contract must be fulfilled, unless the land is unava ilable because it was sold to someone else. In that scenario damages will be awarded instead. The courts would rather preserve specific performance in relation to the sale of land because every piece of land is crotchety, and monetary damages will not compensate the buyer adequately.We could argue this subject on the specifics of the case. In the case of Stainbrook v. Low the court upheld specific performance based on the reasoning that a party seeking specific performance of a real estate contract must mount that he has substantially performed his contract obligations or offered to do so (Miller & Jentz, 2008). found on this case decision we must assume that Rainier followed finished with his part of the contract in terms of financing and inspections.If the courts find that he did not fulfill his obligations or at least offer to follow through they could overturn the case and Rainer will not get the property or any monetary damage. The second case states Marita contracts to s ing and dance in Horaces nightclub for one month, beginning June 1. She then refuses to perform. In this scenario a contract for personal services is present, and a court will normally not grant specific performance of contracts for personal services. This is because to order a party to perform personal services against his or her will amounts to a type of involuntary servitude, which is contrary to the public policy expressed in the Thirteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution (Miller & Jentz, 2008). Horace may be entitled to monetary damages from her concealmenting out of the performances in this case. The third case states Juan contracts to purchase a rare coin from Edmund, who is breaking up his coin collection. At the put out minute, Edmund decides to keep his coin collection intact and refuses to deliver the coin to Juan.This goes back to the element of the performance that is specific to a rare good. The coin is unique and monetary damages will not necessarily allow Juan to go out and purchase an identical substitute. In this case the courts would probably uphold the specific performance and make Edmund follow through with the original contract which is to sell the coin. Lastly, the final case states Astro Computer Corp. has three shareholders. Among them are Coase, who own 48%, and Cary, who owns 4%. Cary contracts to sell his 4% to DeValle but later refuses to fare the shares to him.I would say this share would be considered a unique good because each business has its own properties that make it different than other companies. I do not think we could compare the shares to a personal service, and the 4% would not have a definite monetary value. The monetary value of the share could change dramatically depending on the business. I think the courts would lunge Cary to uphold his contract and give the 4% to DeValle based on the fact that it would be hard to go out and purchase an identical substitute. References Miller, R. L. & Jentz, G. A. (2008). rudiments of Business Law Part I.