Quote:
Originally Posted by OKCMallen
Good points, but it takes a stronger showing to invoke the court's equity power for specific performance. What you're saying speaks to the validity of the contract...no one disagrees that the lease must be honored. Now, must it be honored by paying all the rent, or by actually staying in Seattle. That's the showing that seattle must make. From wiki:
Orders of specific performance are granted when damages are not an adequate remedy, and in some specific cases such as land sale. Such orders are discretionary, as with all equitable remedies, so the availability of this remedy will depend on whether it is appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
There are certain circumstances where an order of specific performance would not be granted. Such circumstances include:
1. specific performance would cause severe hardship to the defendant
2. the contract was unconscionable
3. the claimant has misbehaved (no clean hands)
4. specific performance is impossible
5. performance consists of a personal service
6. the contract is too vague
7. contracts terminable at will
8. contracts requiring constant supervision
9. contract lacking mutuality.
10. contract made for no consideration.
|
Good stuff.
FWIW, this has all been said about umpteen times in the course of this thread. Before people open their mouth and say stupid things, e.g. "a lease is a lease," they should read the damned thread as well as Doug Loudenback's blog post regarding the matter.
Such uneducated, lazy statements barely merit a reply.