The Assignment on Equity and Trust

Running head: EQUITY AND TRUST
EQUITY AND TRUST
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

EQUITY AND TRUST1
Introduction
Specific performance is considered to be an equitable remedy present in the law of
contract. In this, the court issues some kind of an order, which requires a party to perform some
kind of a specific act in order to complete the contract which needs to be performed. In the
common law doctrine, the rights of the claimants would be restricted to an award of the damages.
When a contract for sale has been made for some kind of a unique property mere money
damages would not be considered to remedy the situation that has been faced by the purchaser.
For instance, Lydia is considered to offer to buy the house of Jenny and Jenny has accepted such
but she later decides on keeping the property Therefore, Real Estate is considered to be unique.
There are several different legal remedies that are considered to be taken into account when
some party has allegedly tried to breach the contractual obligation, which would involve the
lawsuits and the arbitration. However, at times there have been a monetary remedy, which does
not make the plaintiff whole, and such is considered to be the objective for any of the civil
remedies. The Courts are considered to have the authority to order the defendants in any disputes
related to contract in order to perform their contractual duties which would have been agreed
upon by the parties during the time the contract was entered into and such would be determined
that the money would not be able to resolve the issue. Therefore, such is known as specific
performance.
This paper would discuss the concept of specific performance which would be in relation
to a case study Posner v Scott-Lewis [1987] Ch 25 at 36 per Mervin J1. This paper would also
discuss and critically analyze the manner in which the courts in Ireland as well as England would
have developed the particular doctrine on Specific Performance. In addition to such it would also
1 Posner v Scott-Lewis [1987] Ch 25 at 36 per Mervin J.

EQUITY AND TRUST2
discuss the doctrine of Specific Performance and how the contracts are becoming less
enforceable due to the restrictions and limitations of the development of various case laws. In
conclusion, it would summarize the points that have been discussed in the paper.
Discussion
Concept of Specific Performance
Specific performance is considered to be a remedy for some kind of a breach which has
happened in a contract and it frequently occurs with transactions which include land and other
kind of construction work. The court has the authority to issue any order, which would mandate
or compel the party to agree with the contractual obligations. The courts are not considered to
grant any remedy for specific performance, which would be in connection to any contract, which
would involve personal services. These might include several employment contracts as well
because such order would limit the freedom of an individual. When any party is considered to
seek specific performance for some kind of contractual obligation, it would not require any
specific reasons for exercising the contractual rights and therefore for such the specific
performance might be granted which would be in addition to the damages. The specific
performance is considered to be available where the damages would not be an adequate remedy
and such individual would be considered to have a benefit for the contract which cannot be
carried out. The work would be personal or engage any kind of replacement. It can be used in the
case of any obligation in order to build which would be contained in a lease. These things would
be considered to be relevant in order to consider whether the landlord would be left to
penalization of the lease which would be to recover the possession of the premises and such
would be carried out with the ability for building works. Generally, such contract would not be

EQUITY AND TRUST3
ordered if any performance would require some kind of continuous supervision by the court for a
specific period of time if the obligations in question have been defined in the contract.
According to the authors Kostas, and Norrman, it has been stated that the specific
performance in the contract would be considered to cause severe as well as grave hardships to
the defendants as the contract is considered to be unconscionable. The specific performance is
not considered to be generally granted under certain circumstances. The damages in common law
are considered to be available instantly or the detriment is considered to be suffered by the
claimant as the claimant is considered to be an easy substitute if the damages are considered to
be adequate. If the claimant is considered to have misbehaved then the specific performance in
the contract is considered to be impossible. The performance is also considered to be consisting
of a personal service. The contract would also be too vague in order to be enforced. If the
contract was considered to be terminable then such can be renegotiated without any kind of
notice. The contract is considered to require continuous supervision. If there has been any kind
of lack in mutuality for the initial agreement of the contract. If there had been no consideration
made for any contract. Specific performance would not be considered to be granted for any
contracts, which would be void or unenforceable. However, it has been stated that the exception
would be in connection to the estoppel or any part performance. If there has been any kind of
injunction provided in order to restrain or restrict an employee from working for any kind of
rival employer then such would be granted even if specific performance cannot be acquired.
Such can be understood from the case of Lumley v Wagner [1852] EWHC (Ch) J962 where the
case was in relation to the right to terminate the performance in the contract. In addition to such,
the High Court in England and Wales had a discretion in order to award the damages to the
claimant which would be in relation to the specific performance. The damages would normally
2 Lumley v Wagner [1852] EWHC (Ch) J96.