Please leave a comment on these two paragraphs below :
I believe the main reason you cannot make specific performance the main remedy is because the law cannot force someone to perform for another. This borders on and resembles involuntary servitude and can be seen as infringing on someone's personal liberties. We all have the right to free will; for the law to force anyone to do something would be oppressive and would be going against those rights and freedom. If someone should breach a contract then monetary damages should bring the wronged party back to the status they were at before, if not then close to it.
I do not believe that we should rely on specific performance rather than on monetary damages, specifically for the reason stated above, of course, the biggest negative in my opinion. Even if the law were to force someone to do something then who's to say that person would perform their part to the best of their abilities? I think this would open the door for more lawsuits in the end. Specific performance would be good in that it would reinforce the trust put into a contract that the parties willfully entered into. It would also give greater power to the value of someone's word and promises. Furthermore, specific performance would probably cut down lawsuits and court traffic since there would be no guessing game; what the parties' obligations are would be cut and dry within the terms of the contract.
Problem 1:
The UCC does not require that a contract for the sale of goods be "fair." Should the Code require that a contract be fair, or would this unnecessarily derogate the principle of freedom of contract?
Problem 2:
The Code establishes a minimum level of quality when it states in the warranty of merchantability that goods must be "merchantable," or "fit for the ordinary purpose intended and of fair, average quality." Is this a reasonable minimum level of quality and safety? Is it necessary?