Specific performance is a discretionary equitable remedy that requires a party to fulfill their contractual obligations. It is available when damages are an inadequate remedy, such as for contracts involving the sale of unique goods or land. For a court to order specific performance, the defendant must be capable of complying with the order and the plaintiff cannot have chosen an alternative remedy or violated their own obligations under the contract.

1. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
DEFINITION
 Petitt- “an order of the court directing a party to a contract to perform his obligations”
 Lord Diplock in Photo Production Ltd. v. Securicor Transport Ltd. [1980] 1 All ER 556
 "Every failure to perform a primary obligation is a breach of contract. The secondary
obligation on the part of the contract-breaker to which it gives rise by implication of
the common law is to pay monetary compensation to the other party for the loss
sustained by him in consequence of the breach…"
 This means that a defendant has the option of either performing the contract or
breaching the contract and paying damages.
 IOW, the Defendant can buy his way out of performance of the contract.
 However, 'equity will intervene where the common law remedy is inadequate' (simply
because it would be unjust to allow the defendant to avoid performance and merely pay
damages.
 Sec 3&4, also sec 11 - 29 (Chapter 11) of the SRA 1950 and the general principles of this
remedy is applied from English Common Law.
General principle
1. Discretionary Remedy 
 Discretion illustrated by consideration of matters such as the conduct of the claimant.
 Section 21 SRA 1950:
 (1)The jurisdiction to decree SP is discretionary, and the court is not bound to
grant any such relief merely because it is lawful to do so, but the discretion of
the court is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principles
and capable of correction by a court of appeal;
 (2) The following are cases in which the court may properly exercise a
discretion NOT to decree specific performance:
 a. Where the circumstances under which the contract is made are such as to give
the plaintiff an unfair advantage over the defendant, though there may be no
fraud or misrepresentation on the plaintiff’s part; and
 b. Where the performance of a contract would involve some hardship on the
defendant which he did not foresee, whereas it s non-performance would
involve no such hardship on the plaintiff.

2.  A case in which the court may properly exercise a discretion to decree SP is where the P. has
done substantial acts or suffered losses in consequence of a contract capable of SP.
 Wong Kup Seng v. Jeram Rubber (1969) 1 MLJ 245
 The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant to buy from him a rubber
estate within a period of time clearly stipulated.
 The plaintiff failed to buy within the stated time and requested extension, on 6 separate
occasions, and this was given to him by the defendant.
 The defendant, however, informed the plaintiff that he was fed up with the excessive
delay in the finalisation of the sale , so plaintiff was given one day to complete the
purchase.
 The plaintiff failed to buy that day, but offered to do so at a later day. The defendant
refused to sell, and consequently the plaintiff claimed for specific performance of the
contract.
 Held : "Once the time for completion was allowed to pass and the parties went on
negotiating, then time was no longer of the essence of the contract and the defendants
must give reasonable notice of their intention to abandon the contract if the balance of
the purchase money was not paid.
 If the defendants had on the very day of 30th November 1966 i.e. the original date for
completion, made their stand, their decision would have been that 'time was of the
essence' and it would have been proper for them to give notice on the day fixed for
completion that they would abandon the contract; but after going on negotiating they
should have given a reasonable notice of their intention to abandon the contract.
 Since 'time was no longer the essence of the contract, the notice of abandonment dated
15th November 1967 was not a reasonable notice. The net result is that the contract was
never terminated and it would follow that the plaintiff was not in default.
 The defendants by their indulgence in extending the date for completion on not less
than six (6) occasions have put the plaintiff into a sense of false security and have
justified him in assuming that he would be given reasonable time to complete the
contract.
 It would therefore be inequitable to allow the defendant to enforce his strict legal rights
against the plaintiff which he had led to believe would not be enforced against him.
 SP was therefore ordered

3.  Yeo Long Seng v. Lucky Park (1971) 1 MLJ 20
 The plaintiff, through a written agreement agreed to purchase a piece of land from the
defendant, a housing developer, and paid a sum of $500 to him as booking fee.
 The next day, the defendant cancelled the booking without stating any reason and sent
to the plaintiff a cheque for $500.
 The plaintiff returned the cheques and claimed for specific performance of the contract
or in the alternative damages.
 The plea of the defendant was that the plaintiff was given only an option to purchase,
and such option was subject to a formal contract of sale in accordance with the
provisions of the Housing Developers (Amendment) Rules 1969 and they had validly
revoked the option.
 Held : It seems that the day after the conclusion of the arrangement between the parties,
the defendant suddenly found out that the price of the land had shot up considerably in
price overnight.
 Therefore, they wanted to take advantage of the changed situation and cancel their
booking. Thus, it would be most reprehensible for the vendors to be permitted to behave
in this manner.
 Nevertheless, I think this is not a proper case for the exercise of my discretion to grant
specific performance. In my view damages should provide an adequate remedy.
 SP not granted but damages awarded instead
2. Specific Performance is a remedy ‘in personam’.
 A decree issued against the defendant personally;
 Penn v. Lord Baltimore.
 An order of specific performance was granted to the plaintiff who brought a
boundary dispute case to an English court, yet the land was in Maryland, in the USA.
The parties to the dispute were English and both lived in England.
 Equity can make orders affecting property outside its jurisdiction by making orders
against the person of the defendant in the jurisdiction.
3. Damages (C.L. remedy) is inadequate
 Generally equitable remedies are only available where the common law remedies are
inadequate or when the common law remedies are not available.

4.  Therefore, SP will not be available if:
i. Damages (as a remedy for breach of contract (for e.g ) is an adequate remedy or
ii. if the parties have agreed that a specific sum of money is to be paid as an
alternative to performing the contract.
 Section 11 SRA 1950: (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the SP of any
contract may, in the discretion of the court be enforced –
(a)When the act agreed to be done is in the performance, wholly or partly, of a trust;
(b)When there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused by the non-
performance of the act to be done;
(c)When the act agreed to be done is such that pecuniary compensation for its non-
performance would not afford adequate relief; or
(d) when it is probable that compensation cannot be got for the non-performance of the
act agreed to be done.
(2) …the court shall presume that the breach of a contract to transfer immovable
property cannot be adequately relieved by compensation in money, and that the breach
of a contract to transfer movable can thus be relieved.
 Gan Realty v. Nicholas (1969) 2 MLJ 110
 The defendant negotiated with the plaintiff for the sale of their shares in the Oriental
Bank of Malaya Bhd. the terms and conditions of the agreement were confirmed in a
letter.
 The plaintiff had reason to believe that the defendant was about to dispose of their
shares in the bank, and they brought an action for specific performance of the
agreement.
 Held : The said shares are not available in the open market. That is not disputed. The
plaintiff relies on the proposition that the court can order specific performance of an
agreement for the sale of shares which are not available in the open market.
 The court referred to the case of Duncuft v. Albrecht 59 E.R. 1104 whereby the court
gave a decree of SP of an agreement for the sale of railway shares which were limited
in number and not always to be had in the open market. But where the shares in question
are such that they can be easily obtained from the open market, so that the loss can
easily be quantified in money, the court will not grant SP of the contract. (Re
Schwabacher, stern v. Schwabacher, Koritschoner's Claim) (1908) 98 L.T. 127).

5.  It is beyond doubt that in this case that the agreement to transfer bank shares which are
not available in the open market can be specifically enforced for there is no standard
for ascertaining the actual loss which would have been caused by its non-performance
the court ordered for the SP of the agreement . (the inconvenience caused to the plaintiff
would be irreparable and could not be remedied by damages)
4. Observance to the order is a must / Possibility of compliance is a must
 SP will only be decreed where the D is in a position to comply with the order;
 Section 23 – personal bars to the relief
 SP of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person:
(a) who could not recover compensation for its breach; A, in the character of agent
for B, enters into an agreement with C to buy C’s house. A is in reality acting not
as agent for B but on his own account. A cannot enforce specific performance of
this contract. (illustration)
(b) who has become incapable of performing, or violates, any essential term of the
contract on his part remains to be performed; A contracts to sell B a house and to
become tenant thereof for a term of 14 years from the date of the sale at a specified
yearly rent. A becomes insolvent. Neither he nor the official receiver of the estate
can enforce SP of the contract. (illustration (a))
(c) who has already chosen his remedy and obtained satisfaction for the alleged
breach of contract;
(d) who, previously to the contract, had notice that a settlement of the subject-
matter thereof (though not founded on any valuable consideration) had been made
and was then in force.
 Jones v. Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832
 The defendant entered into a binding contract to sell some land to the plaintiff.
After the date of the contract, the defendant changed his mind and sought to avoid
the contract by selling the land to a company acquired and controlled by him solely
for this purpose.
 While SP would not normally be ordered against a vendor who no longer owned
the property, here the defendant was still in a position to complete the contract
because the company was "the creature of the vendor, a devise and a sham, a mask

6. which he holds before his face in an attempt to avoid recognition by the eye of
equity."
 Held: SP was decreed against the vendor and the company
5. Only positive contracts may be specifically performed
 SP is confined to the enforcement of positive contractual obligations – different from
injunctions – prohibitory & mandatory;
 Hafsham v. Zenab [1958] 3 All ER 719 – PC
 emphasized that the basis of SP is a valid contract in wh. one party must have given
adequate consideration to the other party.
 A gratuitous agreement is not liable to be specifically performed;
o Section 24 SRA 1950 - A contract to sell property by one who has no
title or who is a voluntary settlor A contract for the sale or letting of
property, cannot be specifically enforced in favour of a vendor or lessor
– a. who, knowing himself not to have any title to the property, has
contracted to sell or let the same; b. Who, though he entered into the
contract believing that he had a good title to the property; cannot, at the
time fixed by the parties or by the court for the completion of the sale or
letting, give the purchaser or lessee a title free from reasonable doubt;
or c. Who, previous to entering into the contract, has made a settlement
(though not founded on any valuable consideration) of the subject-
matter of the contract. Illustrations a. A, without C’s authority, contracts
to sell to B an estate which A knows to belong to C. A cannot enforce
specific performance of this contract, even though C is willing to
confirm it. b. A, out of natural love and affection, makes a settlement of
certain property on his brothers and their issue, and afterwards enters
into a contract to sell the property to a stranger. A cannot enforce SP of
this contract so as to override the settlement and thus prejudice the
interests of the persons claiming under it.
o Section 17 – Purchaser’s rights against vendor with imperfect title
Where a person contracts to sell or let certain property, having only an
imperfect title thereto, the purchaser or lessee (except as otherwise
provided by this Chapter) has the following rights: (a) if the vendor or

7. lessor has subsequently to the sale or lease acquired any interest in the
property, the purchaser or lessee may compel him to make good the
contract out of that interest; (b) where the concurrence of other persons
is necessary to validate the title, and they are bound to convey at the
vendor’s or lessor’s request, the purchaser or lessee may compel him to
procure the concurrence; and (c) where the vendor or lessor sues for
specific performance of the contract, and the suit is dismissed on the
ground of his imperfect title, the defendant has a right to a return of his
deposit (if any) with interest thereon, to his costs of the suit, and to a lien
for the deposit, interest, and costs on the interest of the vendor or lessor
in the property agreed to be sold or let.
6. Damages may be awarded in substitution for, or in addition to SP
 Section 18 SRA 1950 – Power to award compensation in certain cases;
 Section 19 SRA 1950 – Liquidation of damages not a bar to specific performance;
 Ibrahim bin saidin v. Hitam bin Ali [1954] MLJ 19.
 Section 13 SRA 1950 – SP of part contract where part unperformed is small;
 Section 14 SRA 1950 – SP of part of contract where part unperformed is large.
7. SP may be claimed and granted even before the time for performance has arrived
 General rule – a remedy for breach of contract but it may in some circumstances be
obtained before the time for performance has arrived;
 Court would not normally interfere before the time for performance but if there is
sufficient likelihood of breach court would interfere and grant SP before the contractual
completion date;
Contracts which may be specifically enforced
Section 11
(a) When the act agreed to be done is in the performance, wholly or in partly, of a trust;
(b) When there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused by the non-performance
of the act agreed to be done;

8. (c) When the act agreed to be done is such that pecuniary compensation for its non-performance would
not afford adequate relief; or
(d) when it is probable that pecuniary compensation cannot be got for the non-performance of the act
agreed to be done.
Section 12 – Contracts of which the subject has partially ceased to exist
Section 15 – SP of independent part of contract
Section 16 - Bar in other cases of SP of part of contract
Contracts not specifically enforceable
Section 20
a) Contract for the non-performance of which compensation in money is an adequate relief;
b) Contract which runs into such minute or numerous details, or which is so dependent on the personal
qualifications or volition of the parties, or otherwise from its nature is such, that the court cannot
enforce specific performance of its material terms;
c) A contract, the terms of which the court cannot find with reasonable certainty;
d) A contract which is in its nature revocable;
e) A contract made by trustees either in excess of their powers or in breach of their trust;
f) A contract made by or on behalf of a corporation or public company created for special purposes, or
by the promoters of the company, which is in excess of its powers;
g) A contract the performance of which involves the performance of a continuous duty extending over
longer period than three years from its date;
h) A contract of which a material part of the subject-matter supposed by both parties to exist, has,
before it has been made, ceased to exist.

9. Section 23 - Personal bar to the relief (GP No. 4) SP of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a
persona)
a) who could not recover compensation for its breach;
b) who has become incapable of performing, or violates, any essential term of the contract that on
his part remains to be performed;
c) who has already chosen his remedy and obtained satisfaction for the alleged breach of contract;
d) who, previously to the contract, had notice that a settlement of the subject-matter thereof
(though not founded on any valuable consideration) had been made and was then in force.
Section 25 - Non-performance except with variation Where a P seeks SP of a contract in writing, to
which the D sets up a variation, the P cannot obtain the performance sought except with the variation
so set up, in the following cases namely:
 where by fraud or mistake of fact the contract of which performance is sought is in terms
different from that which the D supposed it to be when he entered into it;
 where by fraud, mistake of fact, or surprise the D entered into a contract under a reasonable
misapprehension as to its effect, has entered into it relying upon some misrepresentation by the
P, or upon some stipulation on the P’s part, wh. Adds to the contract, but wh. He refuses to
fulfil;
 where the object of the parties was to produce a certain legal result, wh. the contract as framed
is not calculated to produce;
 where the parties have, subsequently to the execution of the contract, contracted to vary.
Section 27 - What parties cannot be compelled (force) to perform SP cannot be enforced against a
party in the following cases:
 if the consideration to be received by him is so grossly inadequate, with reference to the state
of things existing at the date of the contract, as to be either by itself or coupled with other
circumstances evidence of fraud or of undue advantage taken by the plaintiff;
 if his assent was obtained by the misrepresentation, concealment, circumvention, or unfair
practices, of any party to whom performance would become due under the contract, or by any
promise of the party which has not been substantially fulfilled; or
 if his assent was given under the influence of mistake of fact, misapprehension, or surprise:
Provided that, when the contract provides for compensation in case of mistake, compensation

10. may be made for a mistake within the scope of the provision, and the contract specifically
enforced in other respects if proper to be so enforced.
Section 28: Bar of suit for breach after dismissal of a suit for SP of a contract or part thereof shall bar
the Plaintiff’s right to sue for compensation for the breach of the contract or part, as the case may be.
Defences to an action for specific performance
 Hardship - Hardship amounting to injustice and unreasonable consequences is a sound defense.
Financial hardship alone is not sufficient for a successful defense
 Delay / Laches
 Mistake / Misrepresentation
 Conduct of the Claimant
 Uncertainty in terms of contract
 Public Policy