Pingley v. Brunson

South Carolina Supreme Court · Contracts

ContractsSpecific performancePersonal servicesInjunctionspersonal services contractspecific performanceinjunctive reliefnegative covenant

Facts

Brunson, an automobile repairman who played organ part time, contracted on December 6, 1977 to play at respondent’s restaurant for three years on designated nights each week for $50 per night. The contract also stated that respondent was buying musical instruments for Brunson’s use, with the price to be paid through deductions from his pay, and that Brunson would forfeit any claim to the instruments if he breached. Brunson performed on December 6 and nine evenings thereafter, but on December 27 he failed to appear and thereafter refused to continue performing. The trial court ordered him to perform and barred him from accepting conflicting employment elsewhere.

Issue

May a court specifically enforce a three-year contract requiring a musician to perform recurring personal services for a restaurant, and may it enjoin him from performing elsewhere during conflicting times when the contract contains no express covenant not to compete or not to perform for others?

Rule

Courts of equity ordinarily will not decree specific performance of a personal services contract, particularly where the services must be rendered continuously over a long period. The narrow exception applies only when the performer has unique and exceptional skill or ability and the substantial equivalent of the promised performance is not readily obtainable from others for money. Likewise, in the absence of an express negative covenant, courts generally do not grant an injunction preventing an employee from furnishing services to another.

🔒

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 Charleston, Maya Larkin agreed to sing at Harbor Lantern Bistro every Friday and Saturday night for 18 months. After six weeks, she stopped appearing, and the bistro sued to force her to resume performing for the remainder of the contract.

Is specific performance the most likely remedy?

Explanation. The majority rule is that courts of equity ordinarily do not decree specific performance of personal services contracts, especially where the services must be rendered continuously over a long period. A singer’s recurring appearances over 18 months fit that rule. The opinion does not say such contracts are never specifically enforceable, only that they generally are not, absent the narrow uniqueness exception. (Derived from Pingley v. Brunson (n.d.).)