These are remedies used when the common law

remedies are insufficient to compensate the claimant.

Specific performance

In this order the court compels the party in breach to
perform their obligations. In practise the court will apply
this remedy with the following restrictions:


Specific performance will only apply where the damages are not
sufficient. Thus if the claimant can replace the lost goods or the
performance, specific performance order will not apply then.
Therefore this order applies on land issues mostly. Because of their
uniqueness.
In nominal charges specific performance can be ordered.
Case: Beswick v Beswick. The plaintiffs husband sold his land to his
nephew on agreement that he would pay annual allowance to him and
when he died to his wife. When he died the nephew refused to continue
making payment. The court held she could not old charges since she
was not part of the contract. On the other hand she could sew as the
executor of the husbands estate. The damages amounted t nominal
since the husband had died before payments had stopped being
made and therefore there was no loss suffered. Thus the court ordered
specific performance.
If the specific performance can cause damage to the
defendant or be unfair the order then cannot be applied.
Case: Patel v Ali: The plaintiff had requested for specific
performance to be applied on a sale of a house. The
sellers husband had gone bankrupt and she had
become disabled thus she needed to be close to close
with family and friends thus moving out would have been
unfair. The court thus refused specific performance and
instead ordered damages.

If a contract is made through unfair means specific
performance cannot apply.In the case of Walters v
Morgan the defendant had agreed to give a lease of
mining over the land he had just bought.When the
defendant tried to enforce the lease by specific
performance ,the court refused saying that the plaintiff
took advantage of the fact that the defendant did not
know the value of the lease at the time of making the
agreement.
There are two types of contracts in which their nature will not allow specific
performance to take place.
One is contracts of personal service where specific performance can
interfere with ones personal freedom.
The second type of contract is contracts which involve continuous duties.

It is difficult to know If there was proper performance but failure to perform
according to the court can result to a charge of contempt by the court.
Case :In Ryan v Mutual Tontine Association ;the lease of a flat was promised
to tenants that there would be a resident porter in attendance at all time.
This resident porter had another job and thus was absent. The court refused
specific performance since that job required complete supervision.



The courts are a times willing to see the degree of supervision
required and the hardships that follow, as in the case of
Posner v Scott Lewis where tenants of some flats sued their
landlord for not fulfilling the obligation of providing a resident
porter.

It will not usually be ordered against a defendant if it could
not have been ordered against the claimant, had they been
the one in breach. So, for example, specific performance is
never ordered when the claimant is a minor, because it
cannot be ordered against a minor.
Orders defendant not to do a particular thing.

Negative injunction is where the court will refuse one from
carrying out a particular action.

Mandatory injunction is where the court orders defendant to
take action to restore the situation which was there before.

Mandatory injunction would not apply if the defendant would
loose more than what the claimant would gain.


Case laws:

Warner Bros Pictures Inc. v Nelson: The actress had agreed
and signed no to work for any other company for a year
however, she contracted with another company within
this year and thus the warner brothers sought an
injunction to prevent her form working with their rival
company. A distinction with specific performance was
made since she wasn't compelled to do anything.




Warren v Mendy: This case concerned a contract
between a boxer and his manager, Warren. The contract
gave Warren rights to manage the boxer for three years,
but during that period the boxer lost confidence in Warren
and asked advice on his career of Mendy. Warren sought
an injunction against Mendy, to prevent him from
inducing a breach of Warrens contract with the boxer.
The court refused to grant disjunction saying that it would
be like indirectly compelling performance of the contract.