“As an equitable discretionary remedy, the order for specific performance is a vital tool in compelling

the unwilling defendant to perform his contractual obligations. Modern courts have proved only too
willing to side-step possible problems of enforcement and grant the remedy where the justice of the
case demands’.

The specific performance is a remedy that is purely equitable. It is a court’s order that compels the
defendant to do the promise that he has committed himself through a contract to do to the plantiff . The
specific performance only applies to the completion of the contract and on the following conditions; it’s
a discretionary remedy, and the court is at liberty to use it at all. However, the application for this
remedy is rare since the principles behind it have been termed as precedent or archaic, and as a result,
the court is reluctant to use them. In a case where the specific performance is allowed, it is usually done
in two conditions; either it is the award of the alternative to damages or in addition to damages due to
the obtained breach of the contract. From this essay, I will argue that the courts apply the specific
performance under some circumstances, and they are cautious when refusing to apply it.

Traditionally the court would use specific performance as an exceptional remedy, where an award of
damages at common law would be an inadequate remedy. The court could exercise this in a myriad
where numerous factors would determine discretion would be necessary which included the conduct of
the claimants. Others are the delay in seeking equitable assistance, and the hardship would result from
an order of specific performance Thomas Bowser and Another v Philip Shadbolt, 1878 . Therefore such
factors would convince the court to exercise its discretion, in such a case an order of specific
performance would be granted. An order of SP will usually be possible since all land is considered to be
unique and damages will usually not be sufficient to compensate the purchaser. This is particularly with
s.2 such as where the contract is invalid or conditional . As Hall v Warren, 1804 P,, Ey, and male. said
that” as much a course in this court to decree specific performance, as it is to give damages in law .
Traditionally specific performance was given to land purchasers under the argument it was unique.
However, Hanham questions the land’s uniqueness when it is sold and acquired for the purpose of being
treated as a money-making commodity due to Lord Hoffan analysis in the Jumbo King Limited expressed
previously. Therefore the country adopted a Canadian viewpoint on granting specific performance to
residential purchasers and not to both parties concerned vendors could succeed in seeking the specific
claim, and hence the whole price of the property would be the remedy. Professor Steven Shavell had the
opinion “specific performance should be reserved to contracts to convey property in all other cases of
money damage would be superior”

In contrast, when it comes to the creation of contracts that are not based on land, specific performance
may be granted in relation to objects. To begin with, in Cohen v Roche, it was ruled in 1927 that a set of
Hepplewhite chairs is not unique per se as can be sold and obtained everywhere; hence, specific
performance was not granted as the damages were considered fine as well . McCardie “LJ said that if it
is merely an “ordinary article of commerce with no special value” then to the courts “SP will not lie.”
However, in the case of Benhke v Bed Shipping Company 1927, a boat was said to be unique as one
could “not go into the market and buy another vessel of the same model and with a different engine,”
and was, therefore, of an “exceptional rarity.” In the latter case, specific performance was granted as
appropriate damages were considered to be insufficient. In terms of the bargain regarding a contract
being sufficient for specific performance, there lies the example of Falcke v Gray 1859, wherein it was
ruled that specific performance should not be granted because the parties were not equal, and it was
known how. The judge did not believe he should treat him favorably with an equitable remedy, and
hence damages were awarded, allowing the defendant to escape the contract . Here, a statute may be
the Sale of Goods Act 1979, s52 of which serves as an example: “specific or ascertainable goods,” which
allows the courts to employ the remedy of specific performance. Moreover, the Consumer Rights Act
2015 does not prprohibit consumers from seeking specific performance.

The court will not award specific performance if it has to be constantly under its supervision. This is
likely to happen because the parties will make the case law at the courts. This has been newly shown in .
The case involved Lord Esher who refused to order the specific performance with the claim that he was
required to enforce a “new” duty meaning that the court will always be in session since the homeowner
is required to be always in the house. In the recent case of Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll
Stores (Holdings) Ltd 1996, there also was an order. Here the plaintiff gave the lease to the defendant,
so they can use a shop in a multipurpose shopping centre as a supermarket . According to the contract,
there was a substantive covenant “by which the tenant covenants with the lessor that the premises will
not be used for carrying on a trade or business to the detriment of the shopping centre” . Still, “the
premises are decently and properly kept [...] to the reasonable satisfaction of the lessor” . The covenant
“mostly expresses this obligation” . The condition did not allow the shop to be closed during “normal
and regular hours of business [...] in general” . The defendants closed the shop even though only the
rent lowered . The plaintiff sued the defendant to order the performance of the contract or offer for the
claim . Nevertheless, the judge ruled that the defendants breaching the contract since the condition
existed which required the shop to be opened . It was also discovered that the damage was assessed at
£236,600 while the loss was £735 . In addition, this case is called on appeal hearings. The judge argued
that the case was a “gross commercial cynicism” since locals shopped there and believed that staying in
the contract would bring the shop back money to him; thus, S.F. was granted . the defendants appealed,
yet the House of Lords were on the side of the Plaintiff. Lord Hoffman claimed that they could not
permit the contract since according to their opinion future “loses can be estimated more accurately than
profits” and “the law of contracts is supposed to provide certainty” . The extra reasons are “a continuing
general order for a party to fulfil his obligations is likely to give rise to more situations in which the court
would be obliged to construe both parties’ intentions than was... likely to happen, and this was almost
inevitable, as trading practices are not static but change.” . In response to Lord Hoffman, Tettenborn
claimed that “it represents an unfortunate failure to liberalize the rules on specific performance and
supply an effective remedy to a plaintiff who is plainly meritorious”

Specific performance can be sought if the claimant will suffer hardship from the judgment. To clarify, in
Patel v Ali 1984, the couple claimed that they would need to change residences if the court made a
decision in favour of the shop owner . It was unreasonable hardship, but it would cause hardship for the
woman, who barely spoke English and had several severe health issues, whereas the husband was in
prison . Thus, the courts acted in good faith because they were allowed to use hardships as a defence in
this very abnormal situation. In regular case scenarios, this court is never given to the claimants as it
takes a particular omission by multiple parties. In Wroth v Tyler 1974, SP was not given because it would
go against public policy to make the choice but for a husband to undertake separate costly proceedings
for his wife to grant the right of occupation . In addition, specific performance can also be considered if
there has been a delay. Usually, when there has been a delay, the courts are apprehensive of granting
specific performance. This is because a delay does not do justice and that delay defeats equity, and
equity cannot suffer a wrong to be without a remedy is an equitable maxim. The remedy can be
withheld if the claim for SP isn’t carried rapidly within a reasonable time . Lastly, if a contract cannot be
voided in Equity in the case of error or misrepresentation, specific performance can be sought .
However, the court does not grant specific performance if the error done acknowledges and could lead
to an abuse of the situation is (Webster v Cecil 1861)

To conclude, specific performance, while an infrequent remedy, has been around for many years,
meaning that modern courts must work with the reasoning that has been given in old issues as there has
not been any recent cases to put right and improve the current remedy of specific performance. Thus,
the general principle that the court usually follows is that specific performance should not be granted if,
among others, it would be futile or impossible, this is in line with research because as this solution
equity does nothing in vain . The essential dispute in lawful literary concerns with if specific performance
is functional. I do believe governments are cautious when granting this remedy. They compare what can
award the claimants the money, beyond reasonable doubt, before giving unique performances. A
proponent of philosophy lawyers supports the use of specific performance by governments, as it is the
nearest thing to fulfilling the contract. .

Blue Manchester Ltd v North West

Ground Rents Ltd-
In this case, the landlord covenanted to keep the common parts “in good and substantial repair and
when necessary as part of repair to reinstate replace and renew where appropriate… .” The external
parts were, therefore, within the common parts . One of the parties went into liquidation. The tenant
brought a case against the landlord of specific performance . The tenant required the landlord to fulfill
its part of the contract under the repairing covenant under the lease . The claim was by the landlord
because an action had been done by way of steps required to be carried out by the landlord. The
needful was to “ensure sufficient steps were taken to comply with its repairing obligation” . It was
therefore held that the landlord was in breach of its repairing covenant as it was required to ensure the
SBUs were repaired by arranging the like-for-like replacement . This is an important case because a
requirement to repair, especially with specific performance in compliance with conditions maintained in
the lease, is a rarely granted specific performance. It was held that the steps taken to fix was a
temporary measure which would ensure only a temporary solution.