Remedies
Reading Assignment
For class on 10/19, read pp. 305-324 re irreparable injury and specific
performance of contracts. Keep in mind the following questions:
More on Irreparable Injury Torts & Comparison to Replevin
Read Continental Airlines before you read Brook – these cases flesh out irreparable
injury and injunctions in the torts context and compare it to a similar remedy – replevin.
1.
Exactly what injury has the airline suffered in Continental? How is that injury
irreparable in the sense that the law understands that term? How is that injury
different from the irreparable injury we discussed in the context of Pardee?
2.
What is the purpose of the writ of replevin (as seen in Brooks)? How is it
different from an injunction?
Specific Performance
1.
Campbell Soup involves specific performance – a specialized kind of injunction
mandating that the defendant perform her obligations under a contract. The
irreparable injury rule applies here as well.
a. In what circumstances is property “unique” so that specific performance
might be warranted?
b. Why was specific performance warranted in Campbell Soup?
2.
What difference is there between an award of expectancy damages and a grant of
specific performance? Why were the Wentzes so reluctant to perform under the
contract and why did they argue for damages instead?
3.
Campbell Soup stands for the proposition that plaintiff can get specific
performance where it is impossible to cover. When, short of impossibility of
cover, should plaintiff be able to get specific performance of a contract for goods?
Why do we ever require plaintiff to bear the risk of finding a new supplier – i.e.,
why isn’t specific performance always available upon breach?
4. If the general rule is that land can never be substantially replaced with damages,
why did the Van Wagner court refuse to grant specific performance? Isn’t the
land especially unique in that instance too?
5. Is the Van Wagner court’s reasoning right that possibility of valuing damages
negates irreparable injury?
a. What if your parents commissioned Pablo Picasso to paint a picture of you
and then someone stole it. Under Van Wagner’s reasoning, can your
parent’s show irreparable injury if they seek an injunction for its return?
b. What is the argument that Van Wagner is wrongly decided – at least
insofar as irreparable injury is concerned?
6. What reason beyond the irreparable injury rule might have caused the court to
refuse to grant the injunction?