London Bucket Co. v. Stewart – Case Brief
London Bucket Co. v. Stewart, 314 Ky. 832, 237 S.W.2d 509 (Ky.1951).
Facts: Stewart (P) sued London Bucket Co. (D) on a contract to install a heating system. Stewart’s original complaint alleged that the system that was installed was incomplete, and that the work had been performed in an unskilled manner. Stewart prayed for specific performance and $8,250 in damages. Stewart later dropped the damage charge and elected to proceed with the specific performance part of the complaint. London alleged that there had been a mutual cancellation of the contract. The court found that the contract had not been canceled mutually and ordered that London render specific performance to comply with all of the terms of the contract. D appealed.
Issue: Is the difficulty of proving damages enough to justify an order of specific performance of a construction contract?
Holding and Rule: No. The difficulty of proving damages is not enough by itself to justify an order of specific performance of a construction contract.
The court stated that it is the general rule that building construction contracts will not be specifically enforced because ordinary damages are an adequate remedy, and in part because of the inability of the court to superintend the performance. The court held that there is nothing to suggest that the service or material that P was to supply was of any unique value that could not be remedied by damages alone.
Disposition: Reversed.
Notes: A court cannot compel a party to do work. It can however prohibit a breaching party from performing the same sort of work for anyone else.