Public Law Codexery

Specific performance

Equitable remedy compelling contract performance when damages are inadequate.

Specific performance

Specific performance is an equitable remedy in contract law, whereby a court compels a party to carry out a specific act, such as fulfilling the terms of a contract. Historically, common law courts could only award monetary damages to a wronged party. The remedy of specific performance was later developed by courts of equity to address situations where damages proved inadequate to achieve justice. As an equitable remedy, it is discretionary, meaning a court will grant it only when it is appropriate under the circumstances. It is most commonly ordered in contracts for the sale of land, because land is considered unique and monetary compensation cannot adequately replace it. In such cases, the remedy is often reinforced by a right of possession, allowing the plaintiff to take control of the disputed property. However, specific performance is generally not available if damages are a sufficient alternative. It is almost never ordered for contracts involving personal services, as forcing someone to work against their will is impractical and prone to poor performance. Courts also refuse the remedy in a range of exceptional circumstances, including when it would cause severe hardship to the defendant, the contract was unconscionable, the claimant has acted improperly (unclean hands), performance has become impossible, the contract’s terms are too vague, the contract required constant supervision, or there was a lack of mutuality in the original agreement. Additionally, if the contract was terminable at will or made without consideration, specific performance will not be granted. In some jurisdictions, such as England and Wales, a court may instead award damages in place of specific performance, assessed on the same basis as damages for breach of contract. In practice, the remedy is most frequently applied to real estate transactions, where a vendor refuses to transfer title. Modern legal thinking in some common law jurisdictions, such as Ontario, has moved beyond the simple notion of uniqueness, arguing that specific performance is fundamentally a flexible rule of justice to be awarded whenever it better serves the interests of justice between the parties than a monetary award.

field
Contract law, equitable remedies
known_for
Court-ordered performance of contractual obligations when damages are inadequate
type
Legal remedy
jurisdiction
Common law jurisdictions (e.g., England and Wales, Australia, United States)

Lore & Background

At common law, a claimant’s rights were originally limited to an award of damages. Courts of equity later developed the remedy of specific performance to address cases where damages proved inadequate. This equitable remedy is discretionary, meaning its availability depends on whether it is appropriate under the circumstances. It is typically available in the sale of land, as land is regarded as unique, but is not generally granted if damages are an adequate alternative. Specific performance is almost never available for contracts of personal service, though an injunction to restrain an employee from working for a rival may be granted instead, as in the leading case *Lumley v Wagner*. A court will not order specific performance if it would cause severe hardship to the defendant, if the contract was unconscionable, if the claimant has misbehaved (unclean hands), if performance is impossible, if the contract is too vague, if it requires constant supervision, or if mutuality was lacking in the initial agreement. The remedy is often guaranteed through a right of possession, allowing the plaintiff to take possession of the disputed property. In practice, specific performance is most often used in land transactions, where the vendor refuses to convey title, because land is considered unique and damages cannot put the non-breaching party in the same position. However, modern decisions in at least one common law jurisdiction argue that uniqueness is merely a proxy for a broader rule of justice, awarding specific performance wherever it better serves justice between the parties. Performance based on personal judgment or abilities is rarely ordered, as the forced party may perform below standard; monetary damages are usually given instead.

Reader's Guide

Specific performance is an equitable remedy in contract law, distinct from the common law’s original limitation to damages. Developed by courts of equity, it allows a court to order a party to perform a specific contractual act, such as completing a sale. Its availability is discretionary, depending on the circumstances. The remedy is most commonly applied to land transactions, where land is considered unique, making monetary damages inadequate. One traditional justification is that land’s uniqueness leaves no other legal remedy to place the non-breaching party in the same position as if the contract had been performed. However, some modern decisions argue that uniqueness is merely a proxy for a broader rule: specific performance is awarded wherever it better serves justice between the parties.

Courts will not grant specific performance in several exceptional circumstances. These include when damages are an adequate remedy, when performance would cause severe hardship to the defendant, when the contract was unconscionable, when the claimant has misbehaved (unclean hands), when performance is impossible, when the contract is too vague, when it requires constant supervision, or when it involves personal service. For personal service contracts, forcing performance often leads to substandard work, so monetary damages are typically given instead. However, an injunction to restrain an employee from working for a rival may be granted, as in the leading case *Lumley v Wagner*. Additionally, under certain legislation, a court may award damages in lieu of specific performance, assessed on the same basis as breach-of-contract damages. The remedy is also often guaranteed through a right of possession, giving the plaintiff the right to take possession of disputed property.

Did You Know?

More in Public Law 1-24

Spotted an error? Know more?

This is a living reference — every entry is fact-audited, and reader corrections feed straight into our audit queue. Suggest an edit · See this site's audit record

Comments

Loading…
Open in the interactive codex →