The owner of a rare manuscript and a collector entered into a written agreement for the sale of the manuscript at a price of $7,500, which was to be paid upon delivery of the manuscript on a specific day. When the owner tendered the manuscript on the specified date, the collector refused to accept it or to pay for it. The owner tried in good faith, by commercially reasonable means, to sell the manuscript, but he was unsuccessful. He subsequently brought suit against the collector for specific performance of the contract. For whom should the court rule?

Answer: The court should rule in favor of the collector, because in this case the restitution are an competent rectification for the individual.

In broad terms, particular performance is not available as a rectification for breach of a agreement when restitution are an adequate rectification for the non breaching organization.

Answer Link

ritu035sds ritu035sds · Answer 2 · 2019-08-07T09:33:02+02:00

The court should rule in favor of the collector.

Further Explanation:

Specific performance:

Specific performance refers to a court-enforced remedy for the breach of contract. When a party of the contract does not perform their part of the contract, then it is considered as a breach of contract. In specific performance, the suffering party goes to the court regarding the breach of contract, and the court mandates the defaulting party to perform the activities specified in the contract. In specific performance, the defaulting party has to perform their obligations specified in the original contract. But specific performance is not applicable or granted by the court in the following cases:

• The performance of the specific performance would result in an unreasonable and adverse effect on the default party or defendant.

• The contract was not justified.

• The damages are readilly available.

• The losses suffered by the suffering part can be easily substituted.

• Specific performance requires personal services.

• The contract is not clear.

• The contract was ceased at the common will.

• The activity in the contract requires supervision.

• The contract was not created with the provision of termination at will.

• The contract was created with no consideration.

• Specific performance is not applicable in case of void contract.

• Specific performance is not applicable in case of the injunction to restrain.

• The suffering party is also involved in the breach of contract

Court rule on the suit against the collector:

In the given case, owner of the manuscript (suffering party) has entered in the contract to sell the manuscript to a collector at a specific price on a specific date. The collector refused to pay for the manuscript on the specific date, and owner filled the suit for the special performance.

The owner of the manuscript tried to sell the product to any other collector in the market, but he was unsuccessful. Therefore, the loss cannot be substituted. The owner can claim damages from the collector in this case. The court rule would rather order the collector to pay for the damages rather than the specific performance of the contract.

Hence, the court should rule in favor of the collector.

Learn more:

1. Learn more about the contract act

https://brainly.com/question/13002632

2. Learn more about the span of control

https://brainly.com/question/12986822

3. Learn more about the sales budget

https://brainly.com/question/12985585

Answer details:

Grade: Senior School

Subject: Business Law

Chapter: Contract Act

Keywords: Owner, rare manuscript, collector, written agreement, sale of the manuscript, paid upon delivery, specific day, tendered, refused, tried in good faith, commercially reasonable means, unsuccessful, subsequently, suit against, specific performance, contract, court rule.