Equitable — practice questions

1. Adequacy of Damages: A 17th-century painting is a unique chattel. B cannot buy an identical substitute on the open market. Therefore, monetary damages would be an inadequate remedy as they cannot provide the specific item contracted for. This opens the door to equitable relief.

2. Specific Performance: The appropriate remedy is specific performance, a court order compelling S to transfer the painting to B upon payment of the £50,000. SP is granted for unique goods where damages are inadequate (Falcke v Gray principles apply).

3. Bars to Remedy: There are no apparent bars. B has 'clean hands' and is willing to perform their side of the bargain (pay the price). The contract is for the sale of goods, not personal service, so supervision is not an issue. Mutuality is satisfied as S could have compelled B to pay.

4. Conclusion: B should seek an order for specific performance. Given the unique nature of the subject matter, the court is highly likely to grant the order.

1. Identify Breach & Remedy: Amina is in clear breach of the negative covenant (a restraint of trade clause). Ben should seek a prohibitory injunction to stop her from operating 'The Daily Bread'.

2. Assess Adequacy of Damages:

• Ben's immediate financial loss is calculated as: £6,000 (previous weekly revenue) - £4,000 (current weekly revenue) = £2,000 per week.
• However, damages would be difficult to calculate accurately for the remaining 2 years and 4 months of the restriction. It is also hard to quantify the loss of goodwill and market share. Therefore, damages are an inadequate remedy.

3. Consider Prohibitory Injunction: The court will consider if the restraint of trade clause is reasonable. A 5-mile radius and a 3-year period for a local bakery business is likely to be considered a reasonable protection of the goodwill Ben paid for (Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt principles). The court can enforce a negative promise with a prohibitory injunction (Warner Bros v Nelson).

4. Application & Conclusion: This does not compel Amina to work for Ben; it simply stops her from breaching her contractual promise. There are no apparent bars like 'unclean hands' on Ben's part. The court is highly likely to grant Ben a prohibitory injunction to prevent Amina from operating her new bakery within the restricted area for the remainder of the 3-year term.