Reading Comprehension

PT147 · S2 · P4 · Q26 Breach of Contract Remedies

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

A remedy that courts sometimes use in disputes involving a breach of contract is simply to compel the participants in the contract to do precisely what they have agreed to do.

Topic

When courts should use specific performance (forcing fulfillment of a contract) vs. awarding monetary damages as remedies for breach of contract.

Framework

Answer / Explain

Main Point

Specific performance is sometimes the best remedy when monetary damages can’t adequately compensate the harmed party, especially for unique items, but in most cases—especially involving services—it’s better for the court to award monetary damages to avoid coercion and friction. ( — end of P1)

P1: Introduction to Remedies for Broken Contracts

Courts sometimes make parties fulfill their contracts (“specific performance”) instead of just paying damages, but this isn’t always appropriate.

P2: When Specific Performance Makes Sense

Specific performance is most appropriate when money can’t make up for what was lost—like with one-of-a-kind or uniquely important items that can’t be replaced by cash.

P3: When Monetary Damages Are Better

Most contract breaches can be fixed with money, and trying to force someone to perform a service—especially when they’re now unwilling—can cause even more problems. Coercing people into such situations creates friction and isn’t practical for the courts, so monetary compensation is usually best for service contracts.

26.

The passage most strongly suggests that the author would agree with which one of the following statements?

Correct
Courts should examine the suitability
Why this is right
This aligns with the author's overall point. She's writing this passage to cautious us against using specific performance in situations where it sucks. Her thesis at the end of the 1st paragraph says, While there are some cases where it's a better alternative than monetary damages, there are many instances in which it is clearly not a suitable remedy. She reiterates this sentiment in the final paragraph: In many cases monetary payment can adequately compensate and thus the court commonly need not consider ordering specific performance. In fact, in some cases, specific performance would actually be detrimental to those involved. So that supports this moderate idea that, "Before you go ordering specific performance (which commonly need not be considered and sometimes would actually be detrimental to those involved), see if you can get away with monetary damages first."
Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
76% picked this
Specific performance is usually the
Too Strong: usually
This answer is pretty close to what the author was saying in the 2nd paragraph, but it goes too far by generalizing that in more than 50% of cases involving breached contracts to sell personal property, specific performance is the most appropriate. She thought specific performance would be the best remedy in cases in which "some item of personal property, which is to be sold according to the contract, is unique or of such subjective importance to the buyer that there is no way to assign an accurate dollar amount". But this answer choice is assuming, then, that most cases of violated contracts involving the sale of personal property involve property that is unique or of super subjective importance. We don't know that. It might be that most broken contracts involving the sale of personal property involve very average items for which it's easy to assign an accurate financial measure of the buyer's loss is not possessing the item, and thus monetary damages would be fine.
11% picked this
In general, coercive court-ordered remedies
Too Strong: in general / unfair
The author would probably say that, "in general, specific performance is a court-ordered remedy that should be avoided". But specific performance is not a synonym for "coercive court-ordered remedies". It's a type of coercive remedy, but forcing someone to pay monetary damages is also a coercive remedy. The author was never saying that most court-ordered remedies are unfair and should be avoided. Even for specific performance, she was never really saying "most of the time it's unfair". She was just saying that in some cases, such as when you're forcing someone to perform a service against their will, it's probably detrimental to those involved and awkward for the court to get involved with such entanglements.
7% picked this
Specific performance is successful at
Too Strong: only when
We can't support this extreme rule that says, if the objective value then specific of the property contracted ? performance isn't is medium to high successful The causal difference-maker the author identifies isn't whether the objective value is low / medium / high. It's about whether there is an objective value, whether it's straightforward to assign an accurate financial measure of the buyer's loss. We could say the author believes that, "if it's easy to measure the objective value of the buyer's loss, then specific performance doesn't need to be used".
2% picked this
To provide fair enforcement of
Out of Scope: should offer options
The author is never suggesting that courts should let the disputing parties choose whether to go for monetary damages or specific performance. She's acting like this decision is still part of the court's discretion, and that they should default towards monetary damages where possible.
3% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free