McCallister v. Patton - 214 Ark. 293, 215 S.W.2d 701 (1948)

Rule:

While equity will not ordinarily decree specific performance of a contract for the sale of chattels, it will do so where special and peculiar reasons exist such as render it impossible for the injured party to obtain adequate relief by way of damages in an action at law.

Facts:

Plaintiff A. J. McCallister entered into a contract with defendant, R.H. Patton, whereby the plaintiff contracted to purchase and the defendant to sell, one Ford super deluxe tudor sedan and radio. At the time the plaintiff entered into the contract in question, the defendant had no new Ford automobiles in stock of any kind and was engaged in taking orders by contract, numbering the contracts in the order that they were executed and delivered to him. When the defendant refused to sell the automobile to the plaintiff, the latter instituted the present action, seeking specific performance of the contract. According to plaintiff, damages in an action at law would be inadequate, because automobiles were very scarce, and he would not be able to use damages obtained to buy another one. Defendant argued that plaintiff's complaint did not state facts sufficient to entitle him to specific performance. The district court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff’s complaint. 

Issue:

Would damages in an action at law be inadequate, thereby entitling plaintiff to specific performance? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the judgment, holding that specific performance was not appropriate because plaintiff had not shown that the automobile he had contracted to purchase was so unique that any remedy at law would be inadequate. The court found that the complaint did not allege that the particular car in question had special or peculiar qualities that made it practically impossible to replace, and that complaint set forth no harm or inconvenience that could not be compensated by a damage award.