McCallister v. Patton

Supreme Court of Arkansas · Contracts

ContractsSpecific performanceSale of goodsPersonal propertyspecific performancepersonal propertychattelsadequate remedy at law

Facts

Plaintiff alleged that he entered into a contract with defendant, an automobile dealer, to purchase a new Ford super deluxe tudor sedan and radio, and paid a $25 deposit. The order provided for delivery as soon as possible out of current or future production at defendant's regularly established price, and the deposit was to be held in trust and returned at plaintiff's option upon surrender of his rights under the agreement. Plaintiff alleged his order was number 37, that defendant had received more than 37 cars since the contract was made, and that defendant refused to sell him the automobile. He further alleged that new Ford automobiles were hard to obtain and that he could not buy such a car elsewhere on the open market, so legal damages were inadequate.

Issue

Did the complaint allege facts sufficient to entitle the buyer to specific performance of a contract for the sale of a new automobile? More specifically, did the alleged scarcity of new automobiles make the legal remedy of damages inadequate so as to justify equitable relief?

Rule

A court of equity ordinarily will not decree specific performance of an executory contract for the sale of personal property because damages at law are usually adequate. Specific performance is available only where special and peculiar reasons show that damages are not a plain, adequate, and complete remedy, such as when the property is unique or has peculiar, special, or sentimental value not measurable in money.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Little Rock, Nora Benton signed a contract with Rivergate Motors, a fictional auto dealer, to buy a standard new sedan from its next shipments and paid a refundable $500 deposit. Two months later, after the dealer sold arriving cars to other customers, Nora sued in equity for specific performance, alleging only that new sedans were very difficult to find anywhere in Arkansas.

What is the strongest argument that Nora is not entitled to specific performance?

Explanation. Equity ordinarily will not specifically enforce a contract for the sale of chattels when damages provide a plain, adequate, and complete remedy. The majority recognized exceptions only where special and peculiar reasons make damages inadequate, such as unique or sentimental value not measurable in money. Mere difficulty in obtaining a standard automobile, without more, does not transform it into a unique chattel. (Derived from McCallister v. Patton (n.d.).)