Breach of Contract Remedies

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct73% picked this

   Courts should examine the suitability of assessing monetary damages in breach-of­ contract cases before they

   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.

   73%
2. B

   Too Strong: usually11% picked this

   Specific performance is usually the most appropriate remedy for violations of contracts to

   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%
3. C

   Too Strong: in general / unfair8% picked this

   In general, coercive court-ordered remedies in contract violation cases are unfair and

   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.

   8%
4. D

   Too Strong: only when4% picked this

   Specific performance is successful at resolving disputes only when the objective value of the personal property contracted for

   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".

   4%
5. E

   Out of Scope: should offer options4% picked this

   To provide fair enforcement of contracts, legal systems should offer disputing parties the option to use any of

   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.

   4%