The_Legal_Environment

Landry has filed suit against Edward because the two entered into a verbal contract which, “is an agreement between two or more competent parties in which an offer is made and accepted, and each party benefits” (Lectric Law Library, 2009). The elements of a contract includes an offer, an acceptance in strict compliance with the terms of the offer, legal purpose/objective, mutuality of obligation – also known as the “meeting of the minds,” consideration and competent parties. They agreed that Landry would purchase a gazebo from Edwards, which is currently on Edward's property. The contract stated that Edward would move the gazebo to Landry's property and install it to the point of completion for Landry. This installation should only take about one day. Edward has failed to honor his commitment within the contract and Landry seeks to gain possession of the gazebo in a final, useable form. Edward, while admitting the breach, defends on the grounds that damages are adequate. Edward is no longer in the gazebo building and installing business. The original contract between Landry and Edward was for the sale and installation of the gazebo in Landry’s backyard. Edward cannot claim that the “damages are adequate” after a contract has been made. The fact that Edward is no longer in the gazebo business is irrelevant. The contract still exists and was not contracted through Edward’s gazebo business, rather through Edward himself. Edward admits to his breach of contract, which makes this case that much clearer. It is Landry's position that an award of monetary damages is not sufficient, and that both physical conditions and the gazebo are unique and that only Edward's gazebo is suitable for his property. Landry seeks judgment from the court that will grant specific performance, which "is available when the contract involves property which is unique or possesses special value, i.e., pretium affectionis" (Severson v. Elberson Elevator, Inc., 1977). Application of specific performance in this case will result in Edward being required to disassemble, relocate and reassemble the gazebo on Landry's property. Though specific performance is not routinely granted in that the court has difficulty in supervising a process that could require months to complete (Yonan v. Oak Park Federal Savings, 1975), it is Edward's estimation that the entire process would require only one day's work. Specific performance also requires that other potential solutions are unworkable or at least unattractive, and such is the case here. Landry's property is hilly and totally unsuitable for the many commercially-available gazebos available through any large home improvement retailer. Landry has sought out other gazebo designs and other individuals with experience in construction who would be able to move the gazebo from Edward's property, without success. Edward will need to be directly involved in the transfer of the gazebo from his property to Landry's property, because he is the only one who holds the specific knowledge necessary to dismantle, move and reconstruct the gazebo. Without his involvement the relocated gazebo will not be the same gazebo that Landry seeks (Goldblatt Bros., Inc. v. Addison Green Meadows, Inc., 1972). It is commonly believed "that specific performance will not be decreed when compensation in damages will provide adequate relief" (Severson v. Elberson Elevator, Inc., 1977), and was the gazebo not as unique and well-suited to Landry’s property that likely would be the case in his request that Edward be ordered to comply with his part of the contract. Edward and Landry entered into an oral contract in which Landry would purchase the gazebo that Edward would then move to Landry's property, reconstruct and make ready for his use. Although Landry can use his property without the addition of Edward’s gazebo, it is his desire to add a gazebo to his property. This desire was the motivating factor behind his action of entering into the contract with Edward. Only Edward’s gazebo is uniquely suited to the terrain of Landry’s property, and another gazebo will not meet the requirements of the physical location. Conversely, only Edward can provide the technical expertise necessary to move his gazebo to Landry's property, and only Edward's gazebo will meet the requirements of the physical location. Landry requests that the court order Edward to fulfill the obligation he took on when entering into the verbal contract with him. The opinion of specific performance should be held that he did not complete the contract, which included sale, move and installation of his particular handmade gazebo built for hilly ground. Therefore Edwards should be held liable for this specific performance. References (2009) Contracts. Retrieved June 2, 2009 from the Lectric Law Library’s website: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c123.htm Goldblatt Bros., Inc. v. Addison Green Meadows, Inc. Illinois Court of Appeals 8 Ill. App. 3d 490, 290 N.E. 2d 715 (1972). Severson v. Elberson Elevator, Inc. Iowa Supreme Court 250 N.W. 2d 417 (1977). Yonan v. Oak Park Federal Savings Illinois Court of Appeals 27 Ill. App. 3d 967, 326 N.E. 2d 773 (1975).