06.09.2021 Views

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

certainty, then S&M should be compelled to per<strong>for</strong>m its contractual obligation by<br />

restoring Van Wagner to the premises. Moreover, the contingencies to which S&M<br />

points do not, as a practical matter, render the calculation of damages speculative.<br />

While S&M could terminate the Van Wagner lease in the event of a sale of the<br />

building, this building has been sold only once in 40 years; S&M paid several million<br />

dollars, and purchased the building in connection with its plan <strong>for</strong> major development<br />

of the block. The theoretical termination right of a future tenant of the existing<br />

building also must be viewed in light of these circumstances. If any uncertainty is<br />

generated by the two contingencies, then the benefit of that doubt must go to Van<br />

Wagner and not the contract violator. Neither contingency allegedly affecting Van<br />

Wagner’s continued contractual right to the space <strong>for</strong> the balance of the lease term is<br />

within its own control; on the contrary, both are in the interest of S&M. Thus, neither<br />

the need to project into the future nor the contingencies allegedly affecting the length<br />

of Van Wagner’s term render inadequate the remedy of damages <strong>for</strong> S&M’s breach of<br />

its lease with Van Wagner.<br />

_____________________<br />

Review Question 1. Parties seeking specific per<strong>for</strong>mance will generally assert<br />

that monetary damages are inadequate compensation because of the “uniqueness” of<br />

the breaching party’s promised per<strong>for</strong>mance. The Van Wagner court cautions that<br />

“[t]he word ‘uniqueness’ is not, however, a magic door to specific per<strong>for</strong>mance. A<br />

distinction must be drawn between physical difference and economic<br />

interchangeability.” Could you explain what that statement means if you were called<br />

upon to do so? The principle involved is actually a rather important one <strong>for</strong> practicing<br />

lawyers to understand.<br />

_____________________<br />

LACLEDE GAS CO. v. AMOCO OIL CO.<br />

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit<br />

522 F.2d 33 (8th Cir. 1975)<br />

ROSS, Circuit Judge.<br />

[In September 1970, Amoco contracted to supply Laclede with its requirements<br />

of propane <strong>for</strong> Laclede to sell to its residential customers.]<br />

For a time the parties operated satisfactorily under this agreement, and some<br />

17 residential subdivisions were brought within it by supplemental letters. However,<br />

<strong>for</strong> various reasons, including conversion to natural gas, the number of developments<br />

under the agreement had shrunk to eight by the time of trial. These were all mobile<br />

home parks.<br />

______________________________________________________________________________<br />

548 CHAPTER VIII: REMEDIES

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!