Breach of Contract Remedies

Answer choices

1. A

   Weakens7% picked this

   Court-ordered compensation in employment cases is often nearly impossible

   This is a reason not to remedy with money. It's saying it's hard to enforce payment.

   7%
2. B

   No Impact16% picked this

   All types of court-ordered remedies for contract violations entail coercion of one or more of the parties

   This is so wishy-washy: all types of remedies. We want an answer to say "do the money remedy, not the forced performance remedy". This doesn't discriminate between the two, so it doesn't lean in favor of either one.

   16%
3. C

   Correct48% picked this

   Most people who are sued for violating their agreement to undertake employment have adequate financial resources to

   Why this is right

   This confirms an assumption the author is making is preferring the remedy of "money" over "forced performance". The author is assuming that "money" is even an option. If you had a contract with someone to mow their lawn / re-sod their gardens on Dec 1st, and then you flaked on the contract, they take you to court, the court agrees that you flaked, and now you're going to get punished: The court will either make you do the lawn work you promised to do, or the court will assess a monetary reward that you will need to pay to that person you flaked on. Well what if you're too broke to pay the guy? In that case, it seems like forced performance would be the better remedy. If you're not going to be able to pay him the $250 fine the court awards, then it would be better for him to have the court force you to show up and angrily do the yardwork, even if it's awkward and you intentionally do a mediocre job. This answer reassures us that monetary rewards are in fact an option. Since employers generally have more available income than employees, it makes sense to potentially wonder whether an employee who flakes on a contract actually has any money to pay a monetary reward.

   Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   48%
4. D

   Irrelevant Distinction18% picked this

   The legal issues involved in employment contract disputes are for the most part very different from the legal issues involved in other disputes

   This question is only concerned about the author's position when it comes to employment contract disputes, so other types of contracts have no bearing here.

   18%
5. E

   Unclear Impact11% picked this

   The rights of potential employees often override the monetary considerations involved in

   The author is rejecting forced performance because it's basically forcing an awkward situation, that may even be hostile. But whose rights is the author looking out for there? The employee or employer? She's not specific; thus it seems mutual. A hostile employee could easily make the employer feel very uncomfortable all day. The author could be saying, "The employer has a right to rectification of this contract in such a way that doesn't inflict more harm or suffering on that employer". Also, I don't really even get how rights of employees are overriding monetary considerations. Was there a monetary consideration for why we would be doing Forced Performance? The idea of one thing overriding another means that, "In deciding whether or not to do Forced Performance, there's a money reason why we would do it, there's a employees' rights reason why we wouldn't do it." That doesn't really match the conversation.

   11%