Grocery, Inc. Paper
It has been known for major companies to be in the light of the court for breach of contract. Depending on the stipulation of the contract most companies end up losing, but it is solely based on what the contract states. For example, in the matter of Grocery v. Masterpiece, (Specific performance, 2008) as a general rule, equity will not order acts that it cannot supervise. In many instances, specific performance is denied where courts would be unduly burdened with the task of supervising the performance. Supervision is a particular problem in building or repairing contracts because the court lacks the technical expertise, means, or agencies to learn exactly what task the contractor is performing or whether she is performing them properly.
There are, however, certain exceptions to this rule. If the plans for the building are clearly defined, or if there has been sufficient partial performance so that supervision of the remainder is not difficult; the court might grant specific performance for its completion.
Masterpiece was quite capable of performing the agreed on stipulations of the contract as well as completion of said tasks within a six month time period. However, due to masterpiece’s unconscionable actions, Grocery Inc. will not be able to open its doors on the desired date. (Mennonite Land Sales Co. Ltd. V. Friesen, 1921) states “One of the features of coercive remedies such as specific performance and injunctions is that the failure of the defendant to comply results in a form of contempt of court order and gives the plaintiff access to public enforcement weapons such as fine or imprisonment.”
Masterpiece’s defense of commercial impracticability is baseless due to it not placing a provision within the contract that would allow the organization to sub-contract to another organization. ‘Thus’, quoting Ulen and Cooter, ‘if parties do not want the cheaper preventer of, or insurer against, to be saddled with the risk of...