Specific performance of a contract is a directive that requires a party that breached a contract to perform according to an initial agreement with the plaintiff. The Alabama Sports Marketing cannot seek specific performance of the contract following Grump’s refusal to honor the contract. Since it was an argument, it means that both sides needed to reach a mutual consensus. Grump cannot fall victim to the disagreement. It is clear that Grump is willing to continue with the video development for advertisement, only after the problem has been solved. Seeking specific performance, therefore, would not be the best for the marketing company.
According to Cameroon Hill, breaching of a personal service contract cannot attract a specific performance of the contract. This because, involuntary servitude is prohibited by the law (Hill, 2008, p. 3). It is indisputable that if Grump is forced to perform in the advert, he will not do it wholeheartedly as it would be before the disagreement. This will in turn lower the quality of the video, resulting in poor reception. Furthermore, the working relationship between the two parties will be strained since Grump will consider it as slavery and a violation of his freedom of expression.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
By the fact that the two parties can still negotiate and reach a plausible conclusion, seeking specific performance for the contract will not augur well with the marketer. Court cases take a considerably long time to finish. Thus, settling the matter between the developer and Grump will be expedient to Alabama Sports Marketers. It will save time, and the game will be out in good time for the ‘Thanksgiving.’
The liquidated damages clause demands that upon failure to act as per the contract, the party that breaches the contract pays a particular predetermined amount. However, there are limitations to this clause, where the court will find its enforcement unreasonable. The courts will consider various factors before determining if the clause is valid in Grump’s case. First, the court will need to compare the $2million to the possible damages following the breach of contract. If it is sensible, then Forest Grump will have to pay the amount to the Alabama sports marketing. If not, then it will only be considered as a penalty to him, and the clause will be unenforceable.
The court will consider the conditions in which the liquidated damages amount was arrived at. The Alabama Sports Marketers will need to explain how they calculated and settled on the $2million. If the marketer offers a satisfactory explanation to the court, then Grump will be obliged to pay the liquidated damages amount in full. Of great importance also, is the conduct of both parties before the breaching of the contract. The court will seek to find the events that led to the breaching of the contract. In Grump’s case, there was a mutual disagreement that needed both parties to discuss and solve the issue. If the court establishes that the disagreement was a result of the developer’s conduct, then it will rule in favor of Grump. Definitely this clause is not valid for Grump’s case because breaching of the contract resulted from the disagreement between him and the developer and not his own personal issues.
Reference
Hill, C.S. (2008). Is Your Liquidated Damages Clause Valid? Baker Donelson Newsletter Publications . Available online from https://www.bakerdonelson.com/Is-Your-Liquidated-Damages-Clause-Valid-04-14-2008 .
