Essay question
'The bars to specific performance are pragmatic rather than principled, and should be abolished in favour of a simple rule that specific performance is available unless impossible.' Discuss.
---
Model answer
This proposition invites evaluation of the traditional equitable bars to specific performance—want of mutuality, supervision, hardship, imprecision, and the prohibition on compelling personal services—against an alternative regime in which the sole criterion is factual possibility. The question implicates broader debates about the function of contract remedies, the proper scope of judicial discretion, and the comparative merits of rules versus standards.
The nature and function of the bars
The bars to specific performance are indeed pragmatic in origin. They evolved not from abstract principle but from the practical limitations of Chancery enforcement. The supervision bar reflects the Court of Chancery's reluctance to undertake tasks beyond its institutional capacity: monitoring day-to-day compliance with complex continuing obligations. The bar on specific performance of personal services reflects both the difficulty of supervising performance and a normative commitment (now reinforced by human rights law) to personal liberty. Mutuality rests on notions of fairness: it would be inequitable to compel one party to perform when the other could not be compelled. Hardship and imprecision likewise serve to prevent oppression and ensure that the defendant knows what is required.
These considerations are pragmatic, but pragmatism is not unprincipled. As Lord Hoffmann observed in Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd [1998] AC 1, the traditional reluctance to order specific performance of obligations to carry on a business reflects several overlapping concerns: the difficulty of framing a sufficiently precise order; the burden on the court of resolving satellite disputes; the risk of forcing the defendant to continue loss-making activity; and the danger of oppressive use of contempt powers. These are principled objections grounded in considerations of proportionality, judicial economy, and fairness. They may be pragmatic in the sense that they respond to institutional constraints, but they are not arbitrary.
The case for a simpler rule
Proponents of a simpler rule—exemplified by the civilian model and by economic analysis—argue that specific performance should be the default remedy, limited only by impossibility. The argument rests on several propositions. First, the claimant contracted for performance, not damages; performance is the primary right, and money is at best a surrogate. Secondly, specific performance may be more efficient: if the claimant values performance more highly than the cost to the defendant, an order for performance maximises welfare. Thirdly, where the parties can bargain around the decree (through a subsequent release or settlement), specific performance facilitates Coasean bargaining and ensures that the party who values the right most highly ends up with it. Fourthly, the traditional bars are often formalistic and produce undercompensation: in Co-operative Insurance, for example, the landlord's loss was substantial and difficult to quantify, yet specific performance was refused on supervision grounds that some commentators (including Burrows) regard as overstated.
This perspective has force. There is a respectable argument that English law undervalues the performance interest and too readily relegates claimants to damages. However, several counterarguments weigh against wholesale adoption of a 'specific performance unless impossible' rule.
The defence of discretionary bars
First, specific performance is not always more efficient. Compelling performance may be wasteful if the cost to the defendant exceeds the benefit to the claimant. Damages enable exit from an inefficient contract and promote flexibility. The defendant may be willing to pay damages but unable (or unwilling at great cost) to perform. If performance is not genuinely valued by the claimant—if damages would in fact suffice—ordering specific performance may simply create a hold-up problem, enabling the claimant to extract a settlement premium.
Secondly, judicial capacity is a real constraint. The court cannot supervise the running of a business, the provision of personal services, or the execution of complex, imprecise works. Lord Hoffmann's concerns in Co-operative Insurance are not formalistic: repeated applications for breach, contested questions of compliance, and the need for ongoing case management impose costs that may exceed the value of the remedy. The pragmatic bars reflect these limits.
Thirdly, specific performance is coercive in a way that damages are not. Failure to comply with an order for specific performance is contempt of court, potentially punishable by imprisonment. Equity has historically been cautious about using the contempt power, especially where the breach may be inadvertent or the obligation imprecise. The bars serve to ensure that the coercive machinery of equity is deployed only where it is workable and fair.
Fourthly, the prohibition on specific performance of personal services rests on a fundamental value: personal liberty. Even if performance were factually possible, compelling an individual to work for another or to continue an intimate professional relationship violates autonomy and dignity. This is a principled, not merely pragmatic, objection. The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, s 236, codifies the bar and reflects its constitutional significance.
Finally, the civilian model—often cited as an alternative—is not as straightforward as it appears. Civilian systems rely on doctrines of good faith, proportionality, and abuse of right to temper the creditor's entitlement to performance. These doctrines introduce discretion analogous to the equitable bars, though under different labels. The practical outcomes may not differ as greatly as the formal rules suggest.
The role of the 'adequacy of damages' test
The adequacy-of-damages test is sometimes criticised as opaque or circular (Stevens, Burrows). But it serves an important gatekeeping function: it directs the court to ask whether the claimant's loss can be adequately monetised. Where the subject matter is unique—land, rare goods, shares conferring control—damages cannot replicate the value of performance, and specific performance is appropriate. Where the subject matter is fungible and damages can place the claimant in the same position, specific performance is unnecessary and potentially oppressive. The test thus incorporates a proportionality assessment: is the coercion of the defendant justified by the inadequacy of the alternative remedy?
Balancing predictability and flexibility
A stark rule—'specific performance unless impossible'—would enhance predictability. Contracting parties would know that performance could be compelled. But it would sacrifice the flexibility needed to address varied factual contexts. The discretionary bars enable the court to refuse relief where enforcement would be disproportionate, wasteful, or unjust. This flexibility is especially valuable in long-term relational contracts, where changed circumstances may make continued performance oppressive.
Equity's genius lies in its capacity to do justice in the individual case. The bars to specific performance structure, but do not eliminate, discretion. They are the product of centuries of experience with the limits and dangers of coercive remedies. Abolishing them in favour of a rigid rule would be a leap into the unknown, justified only if one believes that judicial economy and individual fairness are less important than a formal commitment to the performance interest.
Conclusion
The bars to specific performance are pragmatic in the sense that they respond to practical difficulties of enforcement, but they are principled in that they reflect coherent values: proportionality, fairness, personal liberty, and the limits of judicial capacity. A rule making specific performance available whenever performance is possible would override these values in pursuit of formal consistency. Such a rule might be defensible in a legal system with strong good-faith or proportionality doctrines to serve as a safety valve, but in English law—where party autonomy and freedom to breach (subject to damages) are deeply embedded—it would represent a radical and unwarranted departure. The current framework, with its structured discretion, strikes a reasonable balance between protecting the claimant's performance interest and respecting the defendant's freedom and the court's institutional limits. Reform may be desirable at the margins—perhaps relaxing the supervision bar in carefully defined contexts, as Posner v Scott-Lewis suggests—but wholesale abolition of the bars would be imprudent.
---
Word count: ~1,350. A first-class answer would develop the comparative and economic analysis further, engage with named scholars (Kronman, Schwartz, Burrows, Treitel, Beale), and discuss specific cases (e.g., Sky Petroleum, Patel v Ali) in greater depth. The candidate should demonstrate familiarity with the policy trade-offs and avoid treating the question as merely doctrinal.