Specific Performance vs. Damages: When Courts Choose Each

The default remedy for breach of contract is money damages — specifically, expectation damages that put the non-breaching party in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. Courts prefer money damages because they're easier to calculate, enforce, and don't require ongoing judicial supervision.

Specific performance is a court order requiring the breaching party to actually perform their contractual obligations. It's an equitable remedy, meaning the court has discretion to grant or deny it. The key requirement: money damages must be inadequate to compensate the non-breaching party.

Real property: Almost always available because every piece of land is considered unique. If you contract to buy a specific house, the court can order the seller to convey it.

Unique goods: Rare art, antiques, one-of-a-kind items where no substitute exists in the market.

Long-term supply contracts: When the market can't provide a substitute source.

UCC §2-716: Specific performance is available for goods “in other proper circumstances,” which courts interpret to include output/requirements contracts and goods that are scarce.

Personal service contracts: Courts will not force someone to work for another person (13th Amendment concerns and practical enforceability). Instead, courts may issue a negative injunction preventing the employee from working for a competitor.

When damages are adequate: If you can buy the same widget from another seller, money damages (cover price minus contract price) are adequate.

When enforcement would be impractical: Contracts requiring ongoing supervision by the court are disfavored.

When a question involves breach of contract, always consider both remedies:

1. Calculate money damages (expectation, reliance, or restitution)
2. Ask whether specific performance is available — is the subject matter unique? Are damages inadequate?
3. Consider practical concerns: is the contract enforceable through specific performance, or would it require impractical court oversight?