#23 - Concept Reference, Parallel

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[lathlee]

Isn't B) more of Monetary damages method? since the court orders to pay back monetary sum? which is according to line 6 - 8. btw, where are the lines for a definition for Specific performance exist?

[Adam Tyson]

Specific performance is defined in the opening lines of the passage. It is when the parties to a contract are compelled to "to do precisely what they have agreed to do." In answer B, that means the system analyst is compelled to do the work she agreed to do, and the company is compelled to do what they agreed to do - pay her. Just because it involves money doesn't take it out of the realm of specific performance, lathlee, if paying money is "precisely what they have agreed to do."

Monetary damages are defined as "requiring the one who has violated the agreement to pay a specified amount
of money in compensation for the loss that is incurred or the wrong that is suffered." In answer B, it is the systems analyst who appears to have violated the agreement by refusing to do the work. If monetary damages were to be awarded in this case, it would be her paying the company, not the other way around! Money is used as a substitute for doing what you agreed to do - you pay the other party to compensate them for their loss incurred as a result of your refusal to do the work. In answer B, money isn't being used as a substitute for anything, and there is no loss incurred by either party, as they are each doing and getting exactly what they agreed on.

[lanereuden]

Specific performance is defined in the opening lines of the passage. It is when the parties to a contract are compelled to "to do precisely what they have agreed to do." In answer B, that means the system analyst is compelled to do the work she agreed to do, and the company is compelled to do what they agreed to do - pay her. Just because it involves money doesn't take it out of the realm of specific performance, lathlee, if paying money is "precisely what they have agreed to do."

Monetary damages are defined as "requiring the one who has violated the agreement to pay a specified amount
of money in compensation for the loss that is incurred or the wrong that is suffered." In answer B, it is the systems analyst who appears to have violated the agreement by refusing to do the work. If monetary damages were to be awarded in this case, it would be her paying the company, not the other way around! Money is used as a substitute for doing what you agreed to do - you pay the other party to compensate them for their loss incurred as a result of your refusal to do the work. In answer B, money isn't being used as a substitute for anything, and there is no loss incurred by either party, as they are each doing and getting exactly what they agreed on.

fair enough adam, but what is wrong with D? Is it because returning the item in question is not a fulfillment of the original agreement? That is, returning it is an alternative solution, rather than an re-instatement of the original deal?

[Adam Tyson]

Correct! The original deal was to sell the chair to the buyer, and answer D has the parties returning to their original position, with the buyer keeping the money and the dealer keeping the chair. That's not specific performance.