Specific performance is an equitable remedy. Which of the following is true?

Specific performance is an equitable remedy. Which of the following is true?

• A. Real Property: Usual remedy; Sale of goods: only if goods are unique; Service contracts: not available (negative injunction possible)
• B. Always the first remedy chosen for any breach.
• C. Available for services but not for real property.
• D. Never available for sale of goods.

Answer: (A)

Specific performance is an equitable remedy that compels a party to perform exactly as promised, used when monetary damages wouldn’t adequately fix the breach. For real property, land is considered unique, so courts typically grant specific performance to transfer or ensure ownership of the property rather than rely on damages. When it comes to the sale of goods, the general rule is damages, but specific performance is possible if the goods are unique or otherwise cannot be adequately compensated by money under the UCC rule that allows it in those limited circumstances. For service contracts, courts do not order someone to perform personal services because forcing a person to work raises concerns about involuntary servitude; instead, the remedy is usually damages, and courts may use a negative injunction to prohibit ongoing or future service by the wrongdoer in certain situations. Putting that together, the described rule—real property as the usual target of specific performance, goods only when the items are unique, and service contracts not eligible for specific performance (with a possible negative injunction in some cases)—accurately captures how this equitable remedy operates.

Specific performance is an equitable remedy that compels a party to perform exactly as promised, used when monetary damages wouldn’t adequately fix the breach. For real property, land is considered unique, so courts typically grant specific performance to transfer or ensure ownership of the property rather than rely on damages. When it comes to the sale of goods, the general rule is damages, but specific performance is possible if the goods are unique or otherwise cannot be adequately compensated by money under the UCC rule that allows it in those limited circumstances. For service contracts, courts do not order someone to perform personal services because forcing a person to work raises concerns about involuntary servitude; instead, the remedy is usually damages, and courts may use a negative injunction to prohibit ongoing or future service by the wrongdoer in certain situations. Putting that together, the described rule—real property as the usual target of specific performance, goods only when the items are unique, and service contracts not eligible for specific performance (with a possible negative injunction in some cases)—accurately captures how this equitable remedy operates.