i) Dixon J in J C Williamson Ltd v Lukey Mulholland 1 explained that specific performance is 'in the proper sense, a remedy to compel the execution in specie of a contract which requires some definite thing to be done before the transaction is complete and the parties' rights are settled in the manner intended'.
Specific performance is a principle which is usually applied when other remedies or damages are inadequate to remedy the breach of contract. This will mean that in order for Adolf to seek specific performance, the contract must have commenced or part performed and that damages as a remedy prove inadequate.
Another issue that courts have been concerned about is the constant court supervision which would be required for specific performance. Dixon J in J C Williamson Ltd v Lukey and Mulholland 2 expressed that 'specific performance is inapplicable when the continued supervision of the Court is necessary in order to ensure the fulfilment of the contract.
The Court will not be prepared to expend its resources every time there is a breach of a term of the contract, the Court will be reluctant to order specific performance as, for example each time Bennito fails to paint Adolf's house as specified under the contract, a law suit will arise.
Lord Hoffman in Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores3 concurred with Pennycuick V. C of Dowty Boulton Paul Ltd v Wolverhampton Corporation4 that, 'It is very well established that a court will not order specific performance of an obligation to carry on business.' He also added that 'it is unnecessary in the circumstances to discuss whether damages would be an adequate remedy...'
Thus, I cannot see why damages will not be an adequate remedy for Bennito's breach of contract, even if the damage is inadequate,