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...