Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Readings in the economics of contract law
- Part I Some preliminaries
- Part II Contract law and the least cost avoider
- Part III The expectation interest, the reliance interest, and consequential damages
- Part IV The lost-volume seller puzzle
- Part V Specific performance and the cost of completion
- Part VI Power, governance, and the penalty clause puzzle
- Part VII Standard forms and warranties
- Part VIII Duress, preexisting duty, and good faith modification
- Part IX Impossibility, related doctrines, and price adjustment
- Questions and notes on impossibility and price adjustment
- References
- Index of cases
- Author index
- Subject index
Part V - Specific performance and the cost of completion
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 November 2010
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Readings in the economics of contract law
- Part I Some preliminaries
- Part II Contract law and the least cost avoider
- Part III The expectation interest, the reliance interest, and consequential damages
- Part IV The lost-volume seller puzzle
- Part V Specific performance and the cost of completion
- Part VI Power, governance, and the penalty clause puzzle
- Part VII Standard forms and warranties
- Part VIII Duress, preexisting duty, and good faith modification
- Part IX Impossibility, related doctrines, and price adjustment
- Questions and notes on impossibility and price adjustment
- References
- Index of cases
- Author index
- Subject index
Summary
The standard remedy for breach of contract is monetary damages. However, under certain circumstances – notably, when the subject matter of the contract is “unique” – the victim of a breach can obtain specific performance. There has been considerable debate about the appropriate scope of the specific performance remedy and about its efficacy relative to damages in varying contexts. Anthony Kronman (1978) argues that the uniqueness distinction is an appropriate one for demarcating the domain of the specific performance remedy. Steven Shavell (1984) emphasizes the distinction between contracts “to do” and contracts “to give.” Alan Schwartz (1979) and Thomas Ulen (1984) argue that the specific performance remedy should be routinely available to promisees. All of these invoke economic analysis to justify their conclusions. In Selection [5.1], William Bishop provides another economic analysis that proposes a slight modification of Shavell's distinction. I present some further thoughts on the specific performance remedy in Selection [5.2]. Part V concludes with Timothy Muris's [5.3] analysis of the merits of two alternative damage measures: the cost of completion versus diminution of value. Analytically, the problem turns out to be nearly the same as the specific performance versus damages question.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 1982