 This is Waylon Chow and welcome to Discharge and Remedies for Breach of Contract, Module 3C, Part E. In this part, we will look at the two remaining remedies for breach of contract, which are specific performance and injunction. When specific performance is granted as a remedy by a court, what the court is doing is ordering the party that is in breach to perform what is required under the contract. You know, do what you promise to do under the contract. So this is instead of ordering that party to pay money compensation in the form of damages. Now forcing someone to do what is required under the contract is only done if it's appropriate in the circumstances. So courts look at some specific factors. The first factor is, you know, would damages be inadequate in this case? So where money cannot adequately form a substitute for actual performance of the contract. So damages are usually inadequate to compensate where, for example, the subject matter of the contract is the sale of a unique piece of land or a family heirloom or, you know, private company shares or, you know, some kind of unique item in general that has a value, a dollar value that cannot really be fully quantified by money. The second factor is judicial supervision. So courts generally would do not want to have some kind of ongoing responsibility to supervise the performance of a contractual obligation. So if the obligation only involves some kind of, you know, single or once in for all type of action, then it's more likely to grant specific performance. The third factor has to deal with personal services. You know, courts do not like to force a person to perform a personal service. So they almost will never grant specific performance where a personal service is involved in a contract. So in our Justin and Drew example, if Justin refused to perform at Drew's party, it'd be highly unlikely that a court would grant specific performance. So Justin cannot be required by the court to perform under the contract. Have a look at this quick quiz question. Please pause the video at this time so you may have a moment to read the question and to consider your answer. The answer here is D, a court would will probably give Trent specific performance. The reason why is that the items being sold here, the original group of seven paintings are really one-of-a-kind pieces of art where money damages may not adequately compensate for the breach of contract. Where a contract has a term that is considered to be a negative promise, a negative promise is a promise not to do something. And the party that made that promise under the contract fails to live up to that negative promise. In other words, they're doing what they're not supposed to do. The other party can go to court to try to get the court to provide an injunction, which is an order to not do the thing that is prohibited by the contract. Now, when will a court order an injunction? Generally speaking, an injunction will not be granted if it would create unfair hardship. There are a couple of cases that help us determine or help us decide whether or not there is unfair hardship. There's a case from the 1930s involving the actress Betty Davis. This is Warner Brothers and Nelson. The contract that Betty Davis had with Warner Brothers required that she act only in Warner Brothers films, and there's a negative promise in there to not act for anyone else. So under that term, she can't make films for any other movie studios. So Betty Davis wanted to get out of this contract. Warner Brothers did not seek specific performance from the court to force Betty Davis to act in their movies, because if we look at the law for specific performance, you cannot force someone to perform a personal service. So Warner Brothers, because of that, did not seek specific performance. Now, Warner Brothers did seek an injunction to prohibit Betty Davis from making films or for her acting for anyone else, and the court did impose an injunction to prohibit Betty Davis from appearing in anyone else's films. The court said that Betty Davis had other skills that would allow her to earn a good living outside of acting, and because of that, the injunction would not impose an unfair hardship. In another case from the 1960s, Page One Records versus Britain, this involved a group called The Trugs, whose greatest hit was the song, Wild Thing. So The Trugs had entered into a contract with their original manager. One of the terms in that contract with the manager was to not employ anyone else as a manager. In that case, the court refused to provide an injunction to that manager that they had, to that original manager that they had fired. So the court said, we're not going to give you an injunction that would stop you from hiring another manager. The court said an injunction would have prevented The Trugs from earning a living. Having a manager as a music group was a very important thing in order to get gigs and to arrange their recordings and their contracts. So it was very important to be able to make a living as a recording artist to have a manager. The court said that The Trugs had no other skills that would allow them to earn a living outside of music, and therefore to impose an injunction to stop them from having a manager would cause unfair hardship.