Edward vs. Landry essay
Specific performance is the appropriate remedy
Specific performance is a remedy, which is also defined as an "equitable remedy." It is effective in cases when the legal remedy is considered to be inadequate or impracticable. Such cases include the situations when land, real estate, art, heirlooms, unique goods, etc. is the subject matter of the agreement. During such a lawsuit a judge has to estimate the situation and take into consideration the cases of both the buyer and the seller. Paying attention to specific facts, the judge can oblige the seller to transfer the ownership of the property to the buyer.
In the case of Landry versus Edwards, specific performance is the appropriate remedy because the plaintiff (in this case, the buyer) and the defendant entered into the agreement, which outlined that the buyer would purchase Edward’s storage shed and the seller would sell, move it to Landry's backyard and attach it properly to the ground in the course of approximately one. The seller breached the contract and refused to perform it, giving no reasons for his refusal. The given storage shed hand-crafted by Edwards is supposed to be unique property. Thus, the legal remedy is considered to be inadequate in this case. That is why, specific performance should be ordered in this case.
Taking into consideration the fact that specific performance is granted by the court in cases when unique property is the subject matter of the contract, Mr. Landry has all chances to sue for this remedy. Moreover, specific performance is applied in the situations when the contract is breached, and it compels a party to perform a contract in accordance with the terms that were agreed on by the parties, rather than present monetary damages. Under the circumstances, justice will be achieved between the plaintiff and the defendant.
A positive side of specific performance is that being an order of an equity court, it is sustained by the court’s enforcement. If the defendant does not want to comply with the order, he or she can be cited for criminal contempt or can be incarcerated. If the defendant continues to refuse to fulfil the obligations he or she can be cited for civil contempt and be held in prison until he or she accepts the order. Due to these enforcement powers, plaintiffs try to sue for specific performance.
In the case Landry versus Edwards the plaintiff is likely to be successful in this lawsuit, for he can present evidence that he is "ready, willing and able" to purchase the storage shed. Besides, he does not violate the rights of the defendant and he has contracted in good faith, without acting fraudulently or taking unfair advantage when he contracted terms with the defendant. Thus he fulfils the terms of the contract, while Mr. Edwards, refusing to discharge his duties, violates the terms of the contract. Besides, he is reluctant to give reasons for his refusal and defends on the grounds that damages are adequate. However, damages for the breach of a contract are only adequate in cases, when specific performance is not granted. So, if Landry sues for specific performance in this case, Edwards does not seem to win the case.
Moreover, Mr. Landry is likely to suffer general damages by the delay of defendant in conveying the property. The plaintiff lives in a hilly area and has been unable to find anyone else, who would be willing to sell and install the storage shed. Besides, no comparable storage sheds are available. Although there are manufactured storage sheds, which are readily available and come with detailed installation instructions, for Mr. Laundry, it is not the most convenient choice, considering the remote area, where he lives. It seems to be time-consuming and problematic for the plaintiff to contact firms offering manufactured storage sheds. These conditions prove to be advantage in the case, if Laundry sues for special performance.
Taking into consideration the conditions of the case of Landry versus Edwards, specific performance is the appropriate remedy to bring justice in this situation. The plaintiff Laundry, being the buyer of a handmade storage shade, which is considered to be a unique property, and acting honestly, without fraud, when he entered into the agreement with Mr. Edwards, has an opportunity to win the case, if he sues for specific performance.