Order ready-to-submit essays. No Plagiarism Guarantee!
Note: All our papers are written from scratch by human writers to ensure authenticity and originality.
I believe the main reason you cannot make specific performance the main remedy is because the cannot force someone to perform for another. This borders on and resembles involuntary servitude and can be seen as infringing on someone’s personal liberties. We all have the right to free will; for the law to force anyone to do something would be oppressive and would be going against those rights and freedom. If someone should breach a contract then monetary damages should bring the wronged party back to the status they were at before, if not then close to it.
Check your essay before you submit. See exactly what your professor sees.
See your AI and plagiarism results before your instructor does.Get the exact same report your professor uses. Trusted by 50,000+ students worldwide.
I do not believe that we should rely on specific performance rather than on monetary damages, specifically for the reason stated above, of course, the biggest negative in my opinion. Even if the law were to force someone to do something then who’s to say that person would perform their part to the best of their abilities? I think this would open the door for more lawsuits in the end. Specific performance would be good in that it would reinforce the put into a contract that the parties willfully entered into. It would also give greater power to the value of someone’s word and promises. Furthermore, specific performance would probably cut down lawsuits and court traffic since there would be no guessing game; what the parties’ obligations are would be cut and dry within the terms of the contract.
First question :
The UCC does not require that a contract for the sale of goods be
“fair.” Should the Code require that a contract be fair, or would this
unnecessarily derogate the principle of freedom of contract?
Second question :
The Code establishes a minimum level of quality when it states in the
warranty of merchantability that goods must be “merchantable,” or “fit
for the ordinary purpose intended and of fair, average quality.” Is this
a reasonable minimum level of quality and safety? Is it necessary?
