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.