Specific Remedies (cases and principles)

White and Carter v McGregor

anticipatory breach enables the innocent party to choose whether to affirm the contract (continue to performance then bring action for damages) - if it can perform without cooperation and has a legitimate interest in doing so. no requirement of reasoanbleness.

ads on bins.

The Alaskan Trader

affirmation of a repudiated contract is barred where there is no legitimate interest in doing so

after C repudiated the contract D continued to keep it at C’s availability/made repairs. C entitled to recover payment for this period as it was not in D’s interest to keep it open (it would have been cheaper to have it laid up, let alone find a replacement)

Beswick v Beswick

payment of a widow as agreed between the deceased husband and nephew.

cannot claim in personal capacity as was a third party to the original contract, however could as the administrator of her husband’s estate

Sky Petroleum v VIP Petroleum

Defendant restrained supplies of oil because Plaintiff had broken the credit terms however there was no other source that the plaintiff could use.

An injunction would essentially be an order of specific performance of the contract to sell.

Usually this would be refused as damages would be sufficient however granted because of the plaintiff’s dependency which would have made damages insufficient.

Co-operative Insurance Society v Argyll Stores

anchor tenant wanted to leave the shopping centre

specific remedy is inappropriate where it would be oppressive and is barred by constant supervision

court will not use the machinery of the state to coerce a party to run at a loss for 20 years.

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

no compulsion to work - courts cannot order specific performance for /injunction against employment contract to compel work

Lumley v Wagner

Singer breached contract to perform at another opera

allows injunction to not perform at another place because of the very short time period

only negative obligations may be enforced by a prohibitory injunction

Warner Bros v Nelson

Bette Davis agreed exclusivity with Warner Bros and to renew annually; included covenant to not perform for other companies. entered into a contract to appear in another company’s film

granted an injunction limited to 3 years which did not constitute specific performance to perform for the claimant because a variety of income routes remained open to her. if she chose to perform for the claimant then that was held to be incidental; constituted a pressure rather than indirect order. (Branson)

Warren v Mendy

court will not grant an injunction for a personal services contract if the effect is to indirectly compel performance of a positive obligation

courts are less likely to grant injunction of a type that involves the provision of a specialist service, demands mutual trust and confidence, and has a long remaining term

contract to be exclusive manager of boxer; manager sought injunction against potential second manager

court declined the injunction as the practical effect was to force the boxer to work for the claimant or remain idle and lose his income

Lauritzencool AB v Lady Navigation Inc

pull ships out of a pool to be chartered.

granted and upheld injunction that the defendant would not employ the ships in a manner inconsistent with the time charters; not to fix the ships with any third party for employment until the expiry of the charters

The Scraptrade held that specific performance will not be ordered of a time charter because it is a contract for a personal service. Did not conflict here as Scraptrade limited in its discussion.

Instead fixed with Lumley v Wagner.

Tesco Stores v USDAW

tried to fire employees under previous scheme to replace with new contract.

general rule that specific performance of employment prohibited where mutual relations had broken down but the fact that Tesco had offered new contract rebutted the presumption.