Specific performance is an important equitable remedy amongst other remedies in which a court orders

parties to perform a specific act, such as to complete performance of the contract. It is carried out by court
if they fell those damages wont be fully compensating the claimant. However, this remedy is very
restrictive due to multiple limitations imposed on it. Also, there are some types of contracts which are
considered as unsuitable for specific performance. There are multiple factors which restrain the application
of Specific performance.

Firstly, damages must be inadequate in order to impose specific performance. Remedy of Specific
performance will only be available in the case where items/objects in the contract are unique and claimant
will not be compensated by damages only. It was seen in Nutbrown v Thornton that court ordered specific
performance for a contract to supply machinery which could not be easily acquired from anywhere else.
But on the other hand, in Cohen v Roche, court did not grant specific performance as claimant could have
been sufficiently compensated by damages because in breach of contract the goods were “ordinary articles
of commerce and are of no special value or interest”. In cases where damages are only minute, courts may
grant Specific performance to avoid one party from from getting overcompensated as seen in Beswick v
Beswick, court ordered nephew to conform to the contract he made with his deceased uncle and continue
to pay allowance to his aunt, as agreed.

Secondly, specific performance will not be ordered if this remedy cause hardships to the defendant. In Patel
v Ali, court did not grant special performance because it would have cause hardship for defendant who was
severely ill.

Thirdly, specific performance wont be granted in a case in which a contract has been made unfairly. Before
granting specific performance, which is an equitable remedy, the courts will apply equitable maxims such
as “he who comes to equity must come with clean hands” and “he who seeks equity must do equity” while
deciding whether to grant this remedy or not. It was shown in Walters v Morgan, where judge refused to
grant the remedy of specific performance because the claimant himself was unfair by taking advantage of
defendant’s ignorance and making him sign a lease contract which will not be beneficial for defendant.

The courts will not grant remedy of specific performance for contracts that are unsuitable for it. The first
type of contracts upon which specific performance cannot be granted are contracts involving continuous
duty. An example of it is Ryan v Mutual Tontine Association in which a lease contract of a flat made lessors
bound to provide a porter who has to “constantly be in attendance”. Court ruled that this commitment was
unenforcrable as court had to provide “constant superintendence”, which is unreasonable and impractical.
However, in Posner v Scott-Lewis specific performance was granted because it was different from previous
case as there was no need for continuous duty or personal service. In Cooperative Insurance Society v
Argyll Stores, the House of Lords held that an agreement in a lease contract to keep open a retail premises
for trade during the usual hours of business was not enforceable, other than in exceptional circumstances.
The second type of contracts which are contracts lacking mutuality are not suitable for specific
performance. Contractual meaning of mutuality is the reciprocal understanding or agreement between
parties. Remedy can only be granted against either party which means that specific performance is
unapplicable in contracts lacking mutuality, for example, contracts made with a minor as seen in De
Francesco v Barnum.

Moreover, specific performance are unapplicable to contracts which involve personal services because it is
problematic for courts to supervise the performance of such contracts. But there may be few cases in which
an injunction may be used to make specific performance applicable as seen in Warner Bros v Nelson.

In addition to this, remedy of specific performance would not generally be granted where the contract is
vague regarding performance requirement. The reason for this is that specific performance is a remedy
where the court orders a party to perform a specific act, such as to complete performance of the contract.
It would be complex to decide whether it was fair and reasonable to grant specific performance in contracts
with vague terms.

Other remedies

Injunction means ordering one of the parties involved in case to do something or not -Ordering to do
Something in Mandatory Injunction. Refraining parties to do something is Prohibitory Injunction. Damage
and injunctions, both can be given together. Interlocutory Injunction providing the right to a person if case
is waited to be heard.

Specific performance is ordering the contract to be carried out as agreed. It carried out by court if they fell
those damages won’t be fully compensating. It is not granted when there is a breach of contract and one
party is minor, Even not granted where personal services are carried out.

Recession is used in contract cases where parties are ordered to return to their positions which were
before in case. The thing is returned. Leaf v International Galleries (1950)

Rectification is ordering to correct the mistake in a document if it’s done mistakenly and the parties have
pure intentions. Cooperative Insurance Society v Centremoor Ltd [1983]
Other than this modern Remedies are also formed. Mareva Injunction also known as freezing Order is used
when there is risk that a party will move its assets out of country. All assets are freezed. Anton Piler Order
also known as Search Order is used to allow claimant or police to search defendant’s premises and remove
any document or evidence which might be useful for case in courts.

Conclusion. Why rarely used ? why limited importance ?

To a large extent, it can be said that specific performance is of a rather limited importance in contract law.
The rigorous limitations of this remedy cause it to be applicable on limited number of cases. Also, it can be
argued that in some cases like Warner Bros v Nelson, an injunction would provide the same, or near to
similar outcome as specific performance would. Yet, specific performance is still relevant as an equitable
remedy to some extent as it lessens the severity of the law. Practically, instances involving unique items
such as antique items or land, where specific performance would be the only way to compensate claimant
because only damages would have been insufficient compensation. Hence, the restrictions imposed on this
remedy could be considered as justified as they will prevent this remedy from unreasonably
overcompensating one party.