Pros And Cons Of Specific Relief Act 1950

The Specific Relief Act 1950 (shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘SRA’) provides for instances where specific performance (shall hereinafter referred to as “SP”) may be made in section 11. To be granted, it relies heavily on the discretion of the court;

“…the grant or refusal of specific performance remains a matter for the judge’s discretion. There are no binding rules, but this does not mean that there cannot be settled principles, founded upon practical considerations … which do not have to be re-examined in every case, but which the court will apply in all but exceptional circumstances.”[ Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd [1998] AC 1, per Lord Hoffman]

SP is considered as an extraordinary remedy, awarded

Similarly in the United States, the court finds that damages are an inadequate remedy when it is too difficult to determine the amount accurately[ Douglas Laycock, The Death of the Irreparable Injury Rule, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 687, at 711.]. Additionally, loss of profits are also difficult to ascertain in such cases[ Triple-A Baseball Club Assocs. v. Northeastern Baseball, Inc., 832 F.2d 214, 228 (1st Cir. 1987) – where the court enforced to sell a minor a league baseball franchise as to not be able to accurately determine the damage.], hence SP is a good resort to achieve justice.

The court would usually grant SP in cases where it include sales of “unique goods”[ As mentioned above, and Leasco Corp. v. Taussig, 473 F.2d 777, 786 (2d Cir. 1972) - where contract for sale of business is deemed to be unique as each business is distinctive ] in which substitute goods are difficult or impossible to be acquired, sales of land, and long-term requirement contracts where damages for breach are difficult to be