Specific performance is a last resort. In contract law, the bias is towards making the plaintiff whole, and frequently there are many ways to accomplish that (like paying money) instead of making the defendant specifically honor the terms of the original agreement.
Not sure about English law but in Roman law (and derived systems as in South Africa) the emphasis is on specific performance as a first resort — the court will seek to implement the intention of the parties embodied in the contract as far as possible.
This is actually American law, neither English nor Roman. While it is derived from English common law, it has an even stronger bias against specific performance (and in fact bright-line prohibits some which would be allowed in the earlier law from which it evolved, because of the Constitutional prohibition on involuntary servitude.)
That's very interesting, thanks! I just learned that courts actually tend to grant monetary damages more frequently than specific performance in general.
However, I have always maintained that making the plaintiff whole should bias toward specific performance. At least that's what I gathered from law classes. In many enterprise partnerships, the specific arrangements are core to the business structures. For example, Bob and Alice agreed to be partners in a millions-dollar business. Bob suddenly kicked Alice out without a valid reason, breaching the contract. Of course, Alice's main remedy should be to be back in the business, not receiving monetary damage that is not just difficult to measure, but also not in Alice's mind or best interest at all.
