A law of specific performance orders the defendant to complete his contractual liability, i.e., to do what he promised to.1 Specific performance is an elective remedy for damage and might be issued at the discretion of the court, subject to various exemptions. Specific performance is an exceptionally constrained remedy: it is accessible for breach of the agreement to sell an individual or unique item, that is, a unique thing of individual property (the samovar), or a piece of land (all land is unique). In Marks v Lilley 19592 specific performance was given because of contract for the sale of land. However, if the item is not unique, so the no breaching party can go out and purchase another, at that point the legal remedy of money damage will take care of the issue. Also, specific performance will never be utilized to drive a person to perform service without wanting to, which would be involuntary servitude. A person might be compelled to quit doing what he ought not to do (injunction), but instead not obligated to do what he won’t do. In some specific circumstance, equity is more flexible than common law.3 If one of the parties to a contract has given a misdescription which isn’t of major significance, the common law will not permit remedy, while an announcement of specific performance, with compensation, might be granted by equity.4
Rescission is an equitable remedy that enables both parties to a contract to be restored to their pre-contract positions if one party commits a repudiatory breach of contract. It’s happened in cases where there has been a misrepresentation made by one party to the other before the contract was entered into or the contract was entered into as a result of coercion or undue by the other party.5
Rectification utilized where a composed instrument does not accord with the expectations of the parties thus it is redressed to influence it to do as such. It is also available for the contrast and the deeds and by s20 of Administration of the Justice Act 19826 it is also available for the will. In Carddock Bros v Hunt 19237 A written agreement for the offer of a house incorporated its connecting yard that had not been proposed. The court amended the written agreement to reject the yard and requested particular execution of the redressed. The remedy is available where there has been a common mistake of fact in the written document and unilateral mistake where one party is well aware of other party’s mistake.
Equitable remedies are not to be utilized by the legal procedure as a stick to beat the restriction into accommodation. The rule that oversees the principles of equity are in this way discretionary. In specific cases, the part of value has been believed to convey a more pleasant result then just damage being granted. In different circumstances equity delivers what can be said to be an unreasonable result, when strict lawful standards might be a more proper reaction.
1 John Duddington, Essentials of Equity and Trust Law (Pearson education limited 2006)
2 Marks v Lilley 1959 2 All ER 647
3 Margaret Halliwell, Equity and Trusts (2nd edn 2000, Old Bailey Press)
5 Scott Atkins, Equity and Trust (2nd edn, Routledge 2016)
6 Administration of the Justice Act 1982
7 Carddock Bros v Hunt 1923