Source: http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/peclcomp46.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 09:15:14+00:00

Document:
(1)	The aggrieved party is entitled to specific performance of an obligation other than one to pay money, including the remedying of a defective performance.
(2)	Specific performance cannot, however, be obtained where: (a) performance would be unlawful or impossible; or (b) performance would cause the debtor unreasonable effort or expense; or (c) the performance consists in the provision of services or work of a personal character or depends upon a personal relationship, or (d) the aggrieved party may reasonably obtain performance from another source.
(3)	The aggrieved party will lose the right to specific performance if it fails to seek it within a reasonable time after it has or ought to have become aware of the non-performance.
(1)	The creditor is entitled to recover money which is due.
(2)	Where the creditor has not yet performed its obligation and it is clear that the debtor will be unwilling to receive performance, the creditor may nonetheless proceed with its performance and may recover any sum due under the contract unless: (a) it could have made a reasonable substitute transaction without significant effort or expense; or (b) performance would be unreasonable in the circumstances.
For the PECL definition of "reasonableness", go to PECL art. 1:302 and the comment and notes that accompany this provision.
a. Article 46 of the Convention gives the buyer the right to specific performance unless the buyer resorts to a remedy which is inconsistent with it. As is evident throughout the provisions of the CISG, the rights of the buyer and the seller are balanced in the Convention and the seller is also entitled to demand specific performance as stated in CISG article 62. Resorting to the remedy of specific performance does not deprive the buyer of his right to claim damages, as stated in CISG article 45(2). Another aspect of this balance between the rights of the buyer and the seller is that according to CISG article 48(1) the seller may, even after the date for delivery, remedy at his own expense any failure to perform his obligations, if he can do so without unreasonable inconvenience or uncertainty of reimbursement by the seller of expenses advanced by the buyer. If the seller makes use of this right, the buyer need not make use of his right to require performance under CISG article 46. In fact, if the seller requests an opportunity to remedy in accordance with CISG article 48(1) and the buyer does not comply with the request within a reasonable time, the seller may remedy within the time indicated in his request and the buyer may not resort to any remedy which is inconsistent with performance by the seller during that time (see CISG art. 48(2)).
b. Specific performance often assumes the nature of extra-judicial remedy, since it is in the buyer's interest to receive the goods under the contract while the seller retains the opportunity to obtain the agreed price. It is a logical reaction on the buyer's part to request performance. Specific performance is reflective of the contract law principle pacta sunt servanda - i.e., contracts are to be obeyed. CISG Article 46 gives the parties an opportunity to honor the contract between them. It gives the buyer the right to obtain the contracted, conforming goods and the seller the right to obtain the full purchase price. It also aims at preventing seller's efforts to buy himself out of the contract.
This provision defines one of the main duties of the seller and CISG article 46 enforces that duty in giving the buyer the right to demand performance from the seller.
d. CISG Article 46 sets as a prerequisite for its application that the buyer does not resort to a remedy that is inconsistent with the remedy of specific performance. Remedies that are inconsistent with specific performance are (i) avoidance of the contract, defined in CISG article 49, and (ii) reduction of price if the buyer could have demanded repair of non-conforming goods or additional deliveries. Avoidance of the contract exempts the seller from the obligation of specific performance by virtue of CISG Article 81(1).
An instance where specific performance is also excluded is when the buyer claims damages for seller's failure to perform some other obligation of his, such as assembly of the goods. An additional requirement for making use of the remedy is that the buyer examines the goods in accordance with CISG article 38  and gives notice of the nature of the non-conformity of the goods within a reasonable time after he has discovered it or ought to have discovered it, as stated in CISG article 39.  The Principles of European Contract Law also impose such a requirement, which is stated in article 9:102(3). The PECL are of assistance in interpreting CISG article 46 and adding clarity to the meaning of that provision; the meaning which must be derived from many interconnected articles of the Convention.
e. The PECL make a clear distinction between performance of monetary obligations and non-monetary obligations - i.e., buyer's and seller's right to compel performance. PECL article 9:102 gives the buyer the right to demand specific performance from the seller. The article goes further than CISG article 46 in characterizing situations where specific performance may not be obtained and it is of assistance in interpreting CISG article 46. PECL article 9:102(2) determines the circumstances when specific performance may not be claimed, by stating that specific performance may not be obtained when: (a) performance would be unlawful or impossible; or (b) performance would cause the debtor unreasonable effort or expense; or (c) the performance consists in the provision of services or work of a personal character or depends upon a personal relationship, or (d) the aggrieved party may reasonably obtain performance from another source.
f. In the CISG realm, article 79 limits the extent to which specific performance may be requested. Even though CISG article 79 mentions only damages as excluded because of an impediment beyond the seller's control, it would be unreasonable to require the seller to overcome an impediment to perform that is of such nature that it would exclude liability for damages altogether. This approach is also adopted in the regime of the PECL. As noted above, PECL article 9:102(2)(a) provides that impossibility of performance operates to exclude the remedy of specific performance. The same PECL provision also takes into account the possible unlawfulness of performance. Such a situation might emerge, for example, when the government of the seller's country imposes an export ban on the contracted goods. This would make performance on the seller's part both impossible and unlawful. In these instances one has to consider the nature of the impediment to perform. If the impediment is only of temporary nature, the buyer retains his right to demand performance after the impediment has been overcome.
g. Another prerequisite for the application of specific performance is the lack of conformity of the goods to the contract. Article 35(1) of the Convention indicates that the goods conform to the contract if they are of the quantity, quality and description required by the contract. The goods also need to be contained or packaged in the manner required by the contract. Additionally, CISG article 35(2) states that the goods do not conform with the contract unless they: a) are fit for the purposes for which goods of the same description would ordinarily be used; b) are fit for any particular purpose expressly or impliedly made known to the seller at the time of the conclusion of the contract, except where the circumstances show that the buyer did not rely, or that it was unreasonable for him to rely, on the seller's skill and judgment; c) possess the qualities of goods which the seller has held out to the buyer as a sample or model; d) are contained or packaged in the manner usual for such goods or, where there is no such manner, in a manner adequate to preserve and protect the goods.
Furthermore, CISG article 41 provides that the seller must deliver goods which are free from any right or claim of a third party, unless the buyer agreed to take the goods subject to that right or claim.
Concerning third party claims to the goods, CISG Article 42 provides that the seller must deliver goods which are free from any right or claim of a third party based on industrial property or other intellectual property, of which at the time of the conclusion of the contract the seller knew or could not have been unaware, provided that the right or claim is based on industrial property or other intellectual property under the law of the state where the goods will be resold or otherwise used, if it was contemplated by the parties at the time of the conclusion of the contract that the goods would be resold or otherwise used in that state or in any other case, under the law of the state where the buyer has his place of business. Third party claims have been often classified as falling within the ambit of CISG article 46 and thus entitling the buyer to demand specific performance  in cases of defects in title. This seems plausible not only because a defect in title is a failure to perform on the seller's part as stated in CISG article 46(1), but also because CISG article 30 states that the seller must transfer the property in the goods.
"A breach of contract committed by one of the parties is fundamental if it results in such detriment to the other party as substantially deprive him of what he is entitled to expect under the contract, unless the party in breach did not foresee and a reasonable person of the same kind in the same circumstances would not have foreseen such a result."
A fundamental breach entitles the party, as an alternative to demanding delivery of substitute goods, to declare the contract avoided in accordance with CISG article 49(1)(a). The choice between avoidance of the contract and specific performance is reflective of the pacta sunt servanda principle but is limited by the factors stated in PECL article 9:102(2). Those factors enumerated in the PECL may provide some guidance in the application of the counterpart provision in the CISG. For instance, specific performance may not be required when performance is impossible. The impossibility must be of such nature that it is objective and permanent. This comes down to evaluating the seller's ability to perform and the buyer's right to require specific performance. In this context, the emphasis must be placed on criteria that are independent from the subjective views and circumstances of the seller or the buyer.
This means that even if a seller's breach of contract is fundamental, the buyer may not require specific performance if performance is impossible and consequently the buyer has to avoid the contract and claim damages. This is self-evident  because specific performance in such cases would be an exercise in futility. In this instance, one also has to differentiate between specific goods and generic goods. If the specific goods delivered are non-conforming, it is impossible for the seller to make a substitute delivery of conforming goods for such goods do not exist.
Exclusion of specific performance in situations of impossibility also reflects the general principle of good faith. PECL article 9:102(2) provides that specific performance cannot be obtained if this would cause seller unreasonable effort or expense. This is reflective of the principle of good faith, the promotion and observance of which is an interpretative standard laid down in article 7(1) of the Convention.
Similarly, if the performance consists in the provision of services or work of a personal character or depends upon a personal relationship, as contemplated in PECL article 9:102(2)(c), enforced performance in such circumstances may be regarded as abuse of the buyer's rights; this could also be seen as an extension of operation of the principle of good faith.
j. If the seller's failure to perform is less than fundamental, i.e., it does not substantially deprive the buyer of what he was entitled to expect under the contract, the buyer may require the seller to remedy the lack of conformity by repair, unless this is unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances. The buyer may alternatively claim price reduction under CISG article 50 and, in any event, he is entitled to claim damages as provided in articles 74-77 of the Convention.
k. In the context of CISG article 46(3), where the buyer requires the seller to remedy the lack of conformity by repair, that right is limited by reasonableness considerations as stated in that provision and also in PECL article 9:102(2)(b). The "reasonableness" is reasonableness on seller's part for if it would be unreasonable on the buyer's part to demand repair of defects he would not make such a demand. If efforts to repair would result in unreasonable expenses in relation to value of the goods, for example because of travel expenses associated with international commercial relations, imposing a duty of repair on a seller would be unreasonable and against good faith in international trade.
l. If the repair of goods requires work of highly personal nature as described in PECL article 9:102(2)(c), such as creative work, it would be highly unlikely that the seller would perform if such a duty was imposed on him if he did not perform in the first place. In these instances the buyer may resort to other remedies at his disposal.
m. Upholding of good faith can also be seen in the exclusion of specific performance when the aggrieved party may reasonably obtain performance from another source (PECL art. 9:102(2)(c)). The interests of the buyer and the seller must be weighed in relation to one another when determining whether it would be more reasonable for the buyer to obtain performance elsewhere than to impose a duty to perform on the seller. This is applicable both when delivery of substitute goods and remedying the lack of conformity by repair are concerned.
n. The buyer has the burden of proof to the effect that the seller's performance is defective. The seller has the burden of proof insofar as he claims that performance would be impossible, unlawful or unreasonable. Furthermore, if the seller claims that the buyer could reasonably obtain performance from another source, the buyer has to prove the seller wrong.
o. In conclusion, it is submitted that the provisions of the PECL add clarity to the slightly narrower terminology employed by CISG article 46 and, added with the comments to the PECL, illuminate the meaning of the said article, thus providing an important tool for interpreting CISG article 46 by combining some of the criteria that one would otherwise have to draw from other articles of the Convention. It is arguable that a wise contract drafter may want to incorporate the PECL into a contract for the international sale of goods as an interpretative tool of Convention, insofar as the contract concerns European contracting parties. In common law jurisdictions specific performance assumes a narrower scope of application.
* Jarno J. Vanto is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Turku and an LL.M. candidate at New York University School of Law.
1. The PECL contain an equivalent provision: PECL Article 9:103 [Right to Performance: Damages Not Precluded]: "The fact that a right to performance is excluded under this Section does not preclude a claim for damages."
2. See Honnold J., Documentary History of the Uniform Law for International Sales. The Studies, Deliberations and Decisions that led to the 1980 United Nations Convention with Introductions and Explanations, Deventer, Kluwer Law International 1989, p.428: "... the buyer's principal concern is often that the seller perform the contract as he originally promised. Legal actions for damages cost money and may take a considerable period of time. Moreover, if the buyer needs the goods in quantities and with the qualities ordered, he may not be able to make substitute purchases in the time necessary."
- The comparison of CISG article 46 with PECL article 9:102, including the following comment on PECL article 9:102: "If the non-performing party performs, but its performance does not conform to the contract, the aggrieved party may choose to insist upon a conforming performance. This may be advantageous for both parties. The aggrieved party obtains what it has originally contracted for and the non-performing party eventually obtains the full price." The commentary is available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/peclcomp46.html#cnpc>.
3. On efforts in maintaining the contractual relationship, specific performance and subsequent avoidance of the contract, see France 29 January 1998 Appellate Court Versailles, Giustina International v. Perfect Circle Europe 56; R.G. no. 1222/95, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/980129f1.html>.
4. Huber in Schlechtriem P., Commentary on UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG), Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998 p. 376.
5. Schlechtriem P., Uniform Sales Law, The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Claims for Performance (Articles 46 and 47), available at <http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/schlechtriem-46.html>.
6. Article 81 (1) first sentence states: "Avoidance of the contract releases both parties from their obligations under it, subject to any damages which may be due." See Huber, op. cit., p. 378.
7. See Huber, op. cit., p. 378.
10. On the requirement for such notification in connection with remedying the lack of conformity by repair under CISG article 46(3), see Germany 20 September 1995 OLG Nürnberg, 12 U 2919/94, available online at <http://www.cisg-online.ch/cisg/urteile/text/267.htm>.
11. PECL art. 9:102(3):"The aggrieved party will lose the right to specific performance if it fails to seek it within a reasonable time after it has or ought to have become aware of the non-performance."
12. Huber, op. cit., p.379.
13. On CISG article 79 not per se precluding the right to compel performance, see the Cross-references and Editorial analysis on CISG article 46, by Vivian Grosswald Curran, available at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/cross/cross-46.html>.
14. CISG Article 79 (3): "The exemption provided by this article has effect for the period during which the impediment exists."
15. See Handelsgericht ded Kantons Aargau, 5 November 2002, OR.2001.00029, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/021105s1.html>.
16. Lookofsky, Joseph: Understanding the CISG in Europe, 2003, Kluwer International, p.121.
17. See Huber, op. cit., p. 383, stating that defects in title are not subject to the fundamental breach requirement of article 46(2) but that the buyer is entitled to compel performance solely on the basis of article 46(1). Huber also states that because 46(2) is not applicable, the right to demand substitute goods is out of the question and the seller's duty to perform is to remove the defect in title in any suitable manner.
18. For more comments on "fundamental breach", see Lorenz, B. Fundamental Breach under the CISG, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/lorenz.html>; see also Schlechtriem, P., Uniform Sales Law, The Experience with Uniform Sales Law in the Federal Republic of Germany, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/schlechtriem25.html>.
"If the goods which have been delivered do not conform to the contract, the buyer may want the seller to deliver substitute goods which do conform. However, it could be expected that the costs to the seller of shipping a second lot of goods to the buyer and disposing of the non-conforming goods already delivered might be considerably greater than the buyer's loss from having non-conforming goods"; available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/secomm/secomm-46.html>.
20. See Enderlein F. and Maskow D., Commentary on CISG article 46, at para 5, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/peclcomp46.html#cnpc>.
21. Huber, op. cit., p.380.
22. Huber, op. cit., p.380.
23. Lookofsky, op. cit., p. 119.
24. For editorial comments on the proper interpretation and application of the concept of good faith in the CISG, see the opposing views offered by John Felemegas and Professor Ulrich Magnus: Felemegas J., "Comparative Editorial Remarks on the Concept of Good Faith in the CISG and the PECL", 13 Pace International Law Review (Number II, Fall 2001) 399-406, also available online, at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/felemegas2.html>; Magnus U., "Editorial Remarks on Good Faith", available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/principles/uni7.html#um>.
25. Huber, op. cit., p.381.
26. "Reasonableness" is a general principle of the CISG. For further comments on the definition and operation of the concept of "reasonableness" in the CISG, see <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/reason.html>. For the definition of "reasonableness in the PECL, see PECL article 1:302.
27. On the inability of obtaining performance elsewhere under the United States Uniform Commercial Code and on CISG article 46(1) and article 28 (exception to article 46), see United States Federal District Court 7 December 1999 Magellan International v. Salzgitter Handel 99 C 5153, available online at <http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/991207u1.html>.
28. Ferrari F., in Review of the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, 2000-2001, Kluwer Law International, p. 6: "� the following three general principles (1) any party which wants to derive beneficial legal consequences from a legal provision has to prove the existence of the factual prerequisites of that provision (2) any party claiming an exception has to prove the existence of the factual prerequisites of that exception; and (3) those facts are exclusively in a party's sphere of responsibility and which therefore are, at least theoretically, better known to that party have to be proven by that party, since it is that party who exercises the control over that sphere."
29. See, e.g., the United Kingdom: Sale of Goods Act 1893, sect. 52 (in part): "In any action for breach of contract to deliver specific or ascertained goods the court may, if it thinks fit, on the application of the plaintiff, by its judgment or decree direct that the contract shall be performed specifically, without giving the defendant the option of retaining the goods on payment of damages."
See also, the United States of America: Uniform Commercial (Code, sec. 2-716(1)): "Specific performance may be decreed where the goods are unique or in other proper circumstances."
Like the commentary to the UNIDROIT Principles and the U.S. Restatements, the comments to the PECL help explain the text. The PECL notes identify civil law and common law antecedents and related domestic provisions. With the permission of the Commission on European Contract Law, these comments and notes are presented below. The source of this material is Ole Lando & Hugh Beale eds., Principles of European Contract Law: Parts I and II, Kluwer Law International (2000) 391-403.
As a rule it is always possible to enforce monetary obligations.
This is the basis of the rule in paragraph (1). A monetary obligation for the purposes of this rule is every obligation to make a payment of money, regardless of the form of payment or the currency. This includes even a secondary obligation, such as the payment of interest or of a fixed sum of money as damages. But in each case, the monetary obligation must have been earned by the creditor, i.e. it must be due.
The principle that monetary obligations always can be enforced is not quite so certain where the monetary obligation has not yet been earned by the creditor's own performance and it is clear that the debtor will refuse to receive the creditor's future performance. This is the situation regulated by paragraph (2).
However, according to sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) there are two situations where the above principle does not apply.
A creditor which can make a reasonable cover transaction without involving itself in significant trouble or expense is not entitled to continue with performance against the debtor's wishes and cannot demand payment of the price for it (paragraph (2) sub-paragraph (a)). The creditor should terminate the contract and either make a cover transaction, thus becoming entitled to invoke Article 9:506, or simply claim damages without making any cover transaction (see Article 9:507 and Comment thereon). The debtor cannot invoke sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph (2) unless two conditions are satisfied. The first is that the creditor can make a cover transaction on reasonable terms because there is a market for its performance or some other way of arranging a substitute transaction. The second is that the cover transaction does not substantially burden the creditor with effort or expense.
Illustration 1: A sells 10,000 ball bearings to B for DM 50,000,- payment to be made in advance. If B indicates that it will not accept delivery, A cannot sue for the price if there is a ready market for ball bearings or if A can easily find a new customer. In contrast, if A would have to make considerable efforts in finding a new customer and would have to shoulder the costs of transportation to another continent, A would not be obliged to make a cover transaction. It could sue for the price under the contract and, if B maintains its refusal to accept the goods, could proceed under Article 7:110.
In certain situations the creditor may even be bound by commercial usage to effect a cover transaction. Whenever the creditor makes, or would have been obliged to make, a cover transaction, the creditor may claim from the debtor the difference between the contract price and the cover price as damages under Article 9:506.
A very different situation is dealt with in paragraph 2 sub-paragraph (b): Here performance by the creditor would be unreasonable. A typical example is where, before performance has begun, the debtor makes it clear that it no longer wants it. This situation can arise, for example, in construction contracts, other contracts for work and especially long term contracts.
The non-performance may be actual (i.e. the date for performance has passed) or anticipatory.
An instance which would not involve unreasonable expenditure is where the creditor must continue to employ its workforce.
The feature common to the two cases dealt with in paragraph (2) is that the debtor is at risk of having forced upon it a performance which it no longer wants.
The burden of proving that the existence of one of the exceptions applies is on the debtor.
However, none of the two exceptions laid down in paragraph (2) affects the right of a beneficiary under a letter of credit to claim payment from the bank. This is because letters of credit are treated as independent of the underlying contract.
One of the consequences that arise if either one of the exceptions applies, is spelt out in paragraph (2): the creditor may not demand the money owed under the contract for the counter-performance, in particular the price (supra Comment A). However, damages for non-performance may be claimed, see Article 9:103.
In accordance with the general principle of pacta sunt servanda, continental law allows a creditor to require performance of a contractual obligation to pay money (cf. Dölle - von Caemmerer � 1 KG no. 9; see for DENMARK Gomard, Obligationsret II 33). Also according to COMMON LAW an action for an agreed sum is often available, although it is limited in certain respects: it may be brought only when the price has been "earned" by performance, e.g. the performance of a service or the passing of property in the goods (e.g. U.K. Sale of Goods Act 1979, s. 49(1), IRISH Sale of Goods Act 1893, s. 49(1)).
The restriction in Article 9:101(2)(a) has a precursor in ULIS art. 61. ULIS art. 61(2) restricts the seller's right to require payment of the price where a resale was in conformity with usage and reasonably possible. CISG art. 62 has dropped this restriction. The seller is bound to the contract; it is therefore obliged to tender performance to the buyer even if the latter is unwilling to receive performance, and may claim the purchase price. This approach expresses the general rule which seems to prevail in most continental European countries.
This Article allows the aggrieved party to require performance of a contractual obligation other than one to pay money by the non-performing party. Due to lack of a better, generally understood term, the common law phrase "specific performance" is used. The aggrieved party has not only a substantive right to demand the other party's performance as spelt out in the contract. The aggrieved party has also a remedy to enforce this right, e.g. by applying for an order or decision of the court.
Article 9:102 covers all obligations which are not covered by Article 9:101, e.g. to do or not to do an act, to make a declaration or to deliver something. In some cases a court order itself will act as a substitute for performance by the non-performing party.
Rules on the means and the procedure of enforcement of a judgment for performance must be left to the national legal systems.
The right to require performance of a non-monetary obligation applies to three situations: first, if no performance at all is tendered by the non-performing party; second, where tender of a non-conforming performance has been made but has been validly rejected by the aggrieved party; third, where the performance is defective but has not been rejected (see Comment C. below).
However, the right to performance is subject to four exceptions (paragraph (2), sub-paragraphs (a)-(d)) and a special time limit (paragraph (3)).
Whether an aggrieved party should be entitled to require performance of a non-monetary obligation, is very controversial. The common law treats specific performance as an exceptional remedy whilst the civil law regards it as an ordinary remedy. These Principles have sought a compromise: a claim for performance is admitted in general (paragraph 1) but excluded in several special situations (paragraphs (2) and (3)).
A general right to performance has several advantages. Firstly, through specific relief the creditor obtains as far as possible what is due to it under the contract; secondly, difficulties in assessing damages are avoided; thirdly, the binding force of contractual obligations is stressed. A right to performance is particularly useful in cases of unique objects and in times of scarcity.
On the other hand, comparative research of the laws and especially commercial practices demonstrate that even in the Civil Law countries the principle of performance must be limited. The limitations are variously based upon natural, legal and commercial considerations and are set out in paragraphs (2)-(3). In all these cases other remedies, especially damages and, in appropriate cases, termination, are more adequate remedies for the aggrieved party.
If the non-performing party performs, but its performance does not conform to the contract, the aggrieved party may choose to insist upon a conforming performance. This may be advantageous for both parties. The aggrieved party obtains what it has originally contracted for and the non-performing party eventually obtains the full price.
A conforming performance may be achieved in a variety of ways: for example, repair; delivery of missing parts; or delivery of a replacement.
The right to require a conforming performance is, of course, subject to the same exceptions as the general right to performance (laid down in paragraphs (2)-(3), see D-J). Thus a non-performing party cannot be forced by court order to accomplish a performance conforming to the contract if the aggrieved party has failed to demand performance within a reasonable time (paragraph (3)) or if the latter may reasonably be expected to make someone else effect repair of the performance (paragraph (2) sub-paragraph (d)).
Illustration 2: A sells and delivers to B a television set. On delivery B discovers that the colour adjustment of the set is defective. The defect can easily be cured [page 395] by fitting a spare part. If B can easily get someone else to fit the part she cannot require A to fit it.
Under these Principles the aggrieved party has a substantive right to demand and to enforce performance of a non-monetary obligation. Granting an order for performance thus is not in the discretion of the court; the court is bound to grant the remedy, unless the exceptions of paragraphs (2) or (3) apply. National courts should grant performance even in cases where they are not accustomed to do so under their national law.
For obvious reasons, there is no right to require performance if it is impossible (paragraph (2) sub-paragraph (a)). This is particularly true in case of factual impossibility, i.e. if some act in fact cannot be done. The same is true if an act is prohibited by law. Even if this prohibition does not nullify the contract, its performance may be illegal. Similarly, specific performance is not available where a third person has acquired priority over the plaintiff to the subject matter of the contract.
Whether or not the impossibility makes the non-performing party liable in damages is irrelevant in this context.
Performance cannot be required if it would involve the non-performing party in unreasonable effort or expense (paragraph (2) sub-paragraph (b)). No precise rule can be stated on when effort or expense is unreasonable. However, considerations as to the reasonableness of the transaction or of the appropriateness of the counter-performance are irrelevant in this context. Nor is paragraph (2) sub-paragraph (b) limited to the kind of supervening event cases covered by Article 6:111. These Articles, as the more specific rule, prevail over the present section.
Illustration 3: A, who has sold his yacht "Eliza" to B, promised to deliver it at B's domicile. On the way "Eliza" is hit by a ship and is sunk in 200 metres of water. The costs of raising her would amount to forty times her value. The cost of forcing A to perform would be unreasonable.
Performance may have become useless for the aggrieved party. In such cases it may then be vexatious to force the non-performing party to stick to its promise, cf. Article 1:201.
Paragraph (2) sub-paragraph (c) covers two different situations: (1) it excludes a right to require performance of services or work of a personal character. This rule is based on three considerations: firstly, a judgment ordering performance of personal services or work would be a severe interference with the non-performing party's personal liberty; secondly, services or work which are rendered under pressure will often not be satisfactory for the aggrieved party; and thirdly, it is difficult for a court to control the proper enforcement of its order.
The term "services or work of a personal character" does not cover services or work which may be delegated. A provision in the contract that work may not be delegated does not necessarily make the work of a personal character. If the contract does not need the personal attention of the contracting party but could be performed by its employees, the clause prohibiting delegation may be interpreted as preventing only delegation to another enterprise, e.g. a sub-contractor.
Services requiring individual scholars of an artistic or scientific nature and services to be rendered in the scope of a confidential and personal relationship are personal services.
Illustration 5: A, a famous artist, contracts with B, a wealthy merchant, to paint a picture for him. If A does not comply with her promise B cannot require performance, because performance of A's obligation requires individual scholars of an artistic nature and thus consists in work of a personal nature.
The signing of a document would not usually constitute service or work within the meaning of this provision. Such an obligation can mostly be enforced since the non-performing party's declaration can be replaced by a court decree (See Comment A.).
Similarly, Paragraph (2) sub-paragraph (c) excludes specific performance where the parties would be forced to enter or to continue a personal relationship.
In case of agreements to enter into a partnership, paragraph 2 sub-paragraph (c) second alternative applies if and insofar as the partnership presupposes a close personal contact. But as in case of a contract to form a public company, the specific personal element is sometimes lacking; in this case this rule does not prevent the promise being enforced.
Illustration 6: The six heirs of a factory-owner conclude a contract in due form to establish a limited company in order to continue the inherited business. Later A, one of the heirs, who was not to assume any management functions in the company, refuses to co-operate in the creation of the company. The other heirs may require performance of the preliminary agreement. The result would be different if the agreement were one to create a partnership in which all the partners were to play an active role.
Paragraph (2) sub-paragraph (c) speaks only of positive acts ("provision, performance"). It is possible to require performance of a negative obligation, e.g. to forebear from rendering services for someone else or from entering into a partnership [page 397] with someone else. If, however, enforcement of a negative obligation concerning services, work or a personal relationship would result in indirect enforcement of a positive act to provide or maintain the same, paragraph (2) sub-paragraph (c) applies.
Illustration 7: A, a specialist in marketing by mail order, has been employed by B on terms that for two years A will not work as a marketing specialist for any other firm. A ceases advising B without notice because C, B's competitor, has offered A a much higher fee. B cannot obtain an injunction to restrain A from working for C or anyone else because A's obligation to provide services for B would be enforced indirectly.
Paragraph (2) sub-paragraph (d), like Article 9:101(2) lit. (a), excludes a right to require performance if the aggrieved party can more easily obtain performance from other sources. Paragraph (2) sub-paragraph (d) does not introduce any kind of a test of adequacy of damages in the sense that performance could only be required if damages were an inadequate remedy. Rather, this rule should encourage the aggrieved party to choose from among the remedies which would fully compensate it the one which can most simply be obtained. According to practical experience, termination and damages will often satisfy its requirements faster and more easily than enforcement of performance.
If the aggrieved party chooses to require performance, this will generally create a presumption that this remedy optimally satisfies its needs. Consequently, the non-performing party will have to prove that the aggrieved party can obtain performance from other sources without any prejudice and that therefore it may reasonably be expected to make a cover transaction.
Illustration 8: A sells to B a certain set of chairs which are of an ordinary kind and without special value. A refuses to deliver. A proves that B may without suffering a prejudice obtain chairs of the kind sold from other sources. B cannot require performance by A.
If, in contrast, the chairs are unique antiques, B may require performance.
An aggrieved party may reasonably be expected to obtain performance from other sources, even if the cost is higher than the contract price, but only if the defaulting party is in a position to pay the damages for the difference. If this is not so, paragraph (2) sub-paragraph (d) does not exclude a request for performance.
The length of the reasonable period of time is to be determined in view of the rule's purpose. In certain cases, it may be very short, e.g. if delivery can be made out of the non-performing party's stock in trade, in other cases it may be longer.
It is the non-performing party which has to show that the delay in requesting performance was unreasonably long.
A corresponding rule for termination is embodied in Article 9:303(2).
One of the consequences that arise from the exceptions provided for in paragraph (2) and (3) is expressly set out in these rules: performance cannot be demanded by the aggrieved party. The aggrieved party may still claim damages, see Article 9:103.
With respect to non-monetary obligations, traditionally there are important differences between the common law and civil law, at least in theory.
In the common law specific performance is a discretionary remedy that will only be granted if damages are inadequate (cf. ENGLAND: Chitty � 27-003; IRELAND, Keane, �� 16.01 ff.; USA: Restatement of Contracts 2d �� 345(b), 357-369). There is also some doubt as to whether specific performance will be given of a continuing obligation, see e.g. Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. v. Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd  3 All E.R. 297 (H.L.). In SCOTLAND specific implement is usually said to be a remedy available as of right but in fact it is granted only in the court's discretion and it is not granted in the cases set forth in Article 9:102(2) (McBryde Chap. 21), though in Scotland continuing obligations may be enforced more readily than in England, see, Retail Parks Investments Ltd v. Royal Bank of Scotland plc 1996 S.L.T. 669. However, in England injunctions for enforcement of express negative stipulations are sometimes said to be granted as a matter of course (Chitty � 27-040).
In the civil law countries the aggrieved party's right to performance is generally recognized. In the German legal family this is "axiomatic" (Zweigert & Kötz 472). The AUSTRIAN ABGB �� 918, 919, ITALIAN Civil Code (art. 1453 (1)) and the DUTCH BW (art. 3:296(1)) expressly so provide. So do the DANISH Sale of Goods Act, � 21 which is expressive of a general principle of contract law, see Gomard, Obligationsret II 33; and the FINNISH and SWEDISH Sale of Goods Acts, � 23.
The principle of enforced performance in natura is particularly emphasised in FRENCH law. It follows from CC art. 1184 (2) and from the contemporary interpretation of CC art. 1142 (see Jeandidier Rev. trim. dr. civ. 1976, 700-724). CC art. 1143 empowers the aggrieved party to demand destruction of anything that has been produced contrary to an agreement. And recently, art. 1 of the Law of 9 July 1991 on the reform of civil enforcement proceedings has established the principle that every aggrieved party may force the non-performing party, in accordance with legal provisions, to perform his obligations. Performance in natura is facilitated by the liberal use of judicial penalties (astreinte) (Malaurie and Aynès, Obligations no. 1017-1023). Whether enforced performance in natura is available as a matter of right for the aggrieved party (and therefore the judge must grant it if it is asked for) is, however, unsure. According to traditional case law, the judge holds a sovereign power to choose the mode of reparation that appears to him the most appropriate, and in particular he can reject enforced performance in natura asked for by the aggrieved party, based on art. 1142 (see Cass. Civ. 1, 30 June 1965, B. I no. 437, p. 327, Gaz.Pal. 1965.2.329). But there is a new "courant" to grant specific performance, based on the literal wording of CC art. 1184(2) (Cass.com. 3 December 1985, B. IV No. 286 p. 244; 28 Feb. 1969, motifs, B. III No. 182 p. 139).
In BELGIAN law the pre-eminence of specific performance is acknowledged (Cass. 30 Jan. 1965, Pas. I 58; Cass. 5 Jan. 1968, Pas. I 567) (though subject to the fact that the demand must not be an abuse of right) and the same is true for PORTUGAL (CC art. 817) and SPAIN (CC arts. 1096, 1098; Diez Picazo, II 679; Lacruz-Delgado, � 21, 170; Ministerio de Justicia, II art. 1096.
The basic differences between common law and civil law are of theoretical rather than practical importance. Even in civil law countries an aggrieved party will pursue an action for performance, in general, only if he has a special interest in performance which would not be satisfied by damages (cf. Zweigert & Kötz 484).
In common law countries specific performance is a discretionary remedy. Nevertheless, this discretion will be exercised in accordance with settled principles (cf. Hanbury & Maudsley 651 with refs.), some of which have been followed in drafting the exceptions in Article 9:102(2) litt. (a) to (d) and (3). Also in FRANCE it had been said that in principle the judge was free to grant damages even though performance in natura has been demanded (Derrida, Obligations no. 127 with ref.). However the cases where this has in fact been done seem to fall under Article 9:102(2) litt. (b) (unreasonable effort or expense) or (d) (other sources of supply available). In SPANISH law the courts may refuse specific performance if it would not be reasonable in the circumstances to grant it: Diez Picazo II, 696; Ministero de Justicia, art. 1124; Lacruz-Delgado II, 1, � 26, 204; Albaladejo, II, 1, � 33.1.B. For BELGIAN law see note 2 to Article 9:101 above.) In GERMAN law the right to performance and its enforcement do not depend upon the judge's discretion (cf. Dawson 57 Mich. L. Rev. 495, 530 (1959)); the same is true of AUSTRIAN law.
Under CISG art. 28 and under ULIS art. 16 in connection with art. VII of the covering convention, restrictions under national laws are preserved even under the uniform sales laws.
Article 9:102(2)(a) expresses the rule "impossibilium nulla est obligatio". If restricted to the right to performance as such (as distinct from subsidiary remedies), the rule seems to be common to the laws of Europe (cf. ENGLAND: Forrer v. Cash (1865) 35 Beav. 167, 171; 55 E.R. 858, 860; IRELAND, Keane � 16.10; FRANCE and BELGIUM: CC art. 1184(2) sent. 2, 1234, 1302; GERMANY: BGB � 275; AUSTRIA, ABGB � 1447; GREECE: CC art. 336; ITALY: CC arts. 1256, 1463; PORTUGAL: CC art. 828; SPAIN: CC arts. 1182, 1184; NETHERLANDS: BW art. 3:236; DENMARK: Gomard, Obligationsret II 45): FINLAND: Taxell, Avtal och rättsskydd 196 and SGA � 23; SWEDEN: Rodhe, Obligationsträtt 348 ff. CISG art. 79 (5) appears to be to the contrary, but this is controversial (cf. Schlechtriem 51, 96-97 with references; Audit nos. 185 - 186).
Article 9:102(2)(b) corresponds to a view which is widely accepted in NORDIC case law and literature (cf. Ussing, Alm. Del 68, Gomard, op. cit. 57 Taxell, op. cit. 197; Ramberg, Köplagen 313 ff.; FINNISH and SWEDISH SGA � 23 and is being discussed in GERMANY (cf. Medicus no. 158) and ITALY (Mengoni, Contractual responsibility 1089-1090). It is a clear rule under AUSTRIAN law, that specific performance is not available if it would be unreasonable: see e.g. OGH 20 March 1963 SZ 36/44. In PORTUGAL, such a rule is expressly provided for in the case of an obligation to demolish a building erected in violation of a duty not to do so (CC art. 829 no. 2). IRISH law achieves this position, Keane � 16.12. GREEK courts have refused a claim for performance in natura where that would burden the non-performing party with excessive and disproportionate sacrifices (AP 93/1967, NoB 15 (1967) 791; cf. ATHENS 5917/1976, NoB 25 (1977) 401). In FRANCE, the cases which recognize the judge's sovereign power to refuse performance in natura (see above, note 1) are sometimes based on the excessive cost of the operation (see e.g. Cass. req. 23 March 1909, S. 1909.1.552; Cass. civ. 1, 8 June 1964, B. I, No. 297, p. 232). However, the recent "courant" which orders works of reparation (or payment for reparation) is not limited by its cost (e.g. Cass. civ. 3, 9 December 1975, B. III, No. 363, p. 275). In BELGIAN law the restrictions mentioned in note 3 to Article 9:101 apply also to the choice between specific performance and damages: Cass. 10 Sept. 1971, Pas. 1972, I, 28 note Ganshof, R.C.J.B. 1976, note van Ommeslaghe. Specific performance will not be ordered if the performance would be quite different to the original obligation, e.g. a lessee which has carelessly burned down the leased premises will not be ordered to re-build them.
Illustration 4 is modelled upon Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co. 382 P. 2d 109, 116 (Okl. 1962).
Thus, in ENGLAND, IRELAND, SCOTLAND and the UNITED STATES specific performance is not available for contracts involving personal services (cf. Treitel, Contract 927; Keane � 16.05; Restatement of Contracts 2d � 367 with � 318; cf. ibid. � 367 comment b). Similarly in FRENCH law under CC art. 1142 there is no right to enforcement of certain personal obligations to do or not to do (Cass. civ. 20 Jan. 1953, JCP 1953, 7677 note Esmein). In BELGIUM the rule is also applied though only where specific performance would involve physical coercion, (Cass. 23 Dec. 1977, Arr. Cass. & Pas 505) and agency cases (CC art. 2007). In SPAIN it is admitted that there is no right to specific performance of obligations consisting in the provision of services or work of a personal nature (Civ. Proc. Code arts. 924 and 925; CC arts, 1098 and 1911; Diez-Picazo, II 124 and 680). In NORDIC law a claim for performance in kind is excluded for employment contracts and in some other cases (DENMARK Lyngsø 125; and generally when performance consists of work of a personal character, Gomard, op. cit. 6; FINLAND: Taxell, op. cit. 192; SWEDEN: Ramberg, Avtalsrätt 52). While GERMAN law allows a claim for personal services, CCProc. � 888 (2) excludes the enforcement of judgments for non-delegable personal services. GREEK CCProc. art. 946 (2) takes a similar position.
ITALIAN law, however, does not have a rule about specific peformance of contracts involving personal services and difficulties have arisen: Mazzamuto.
The idea underlying the second alternative of Article 9:102(2)(c) is common to many laws, although often differently expressed. In ENGLAND and SCOTLAND specific performance of an agreement for partnership will be granted only in some special situations (Lindley on Partnership 536). FRENCH law, too, excludes a right to performance in natura of a promise to form a "société" (Perrot, J. Cl. Sociétés Fasc. 7 bis, nos. 23 and 37). GERMAN law, however, allows the enforcement of preliminary contracts to form a limited liability company (Schlosser (- Emmerich) � 2 No. 81 with references).
Illustration 5 is modelled upon Barrow v. Chappell & Co. Ltd.  Ch.14. Illustration 6 is based on Reichsgericht 8 May 1907, RGZ 66, 116.
Article 9:102(2)(d) is a compromise between different basic attitudes of the common law and the civil law. It does not directly copy any national legal order. But it links up with ULIS arts. 25, 42(1) (c) (cf. note 1 above) which trace back to considerations of Rabel (I 378).
Under the common law the possibility of a cover transaction is an important consideration for denying specific performance (cf. Restatement of Contracts 2d �� 360 (b), 359; Treitel, Contract 919). In European continental laws, cover is merely an option for the buyer, but he is not obliged to use it, unless there is a usage to that effect. Some BELGIAN authors have suggested a rule similar to Article 9:102(2)(d) in certain, mainly commercial, contexts, Fredericq, III no. 1432, van Ryn & Heenen III no. 688.
Illustration 9 is based on Cohen v. Roche  1 K.B. 169 (K.B.).
Article 9:102(3) takes up the COMMON LAW view that an aggrieved party who delays unreasonably in requiring performance in natura may lose his claim (cf. Hanbury & Maudsley 677; Keane � 3.10). A similar rule is found in the FINNISH and SWEDISH Sale of Goods Acts, � 23. In DENMARK Sale of Goods Act � 26 provides that the aggrieved party must give a notice to the non-performing party within a reasonable time that he will continue the contract; otherwise the aggrieved party will lose his right to claim specific performance (see Ussing, Alm. Del. 70). This idea can be found in CISG, too, but it is limited to cases where the buyer claims delivery of substitute goods and repair of non-conforming goods (art. 46 (2) and (3)). No equivalent rule exists in FRANCE, PORTUGAL or SPAIN but in BELGIAN law a similar rule has been accepted: Cass. 5 Dec. 1946, Arr. Cass., 428, Cass. 29 Nov. 1962, Pas. 405; see M.E. Storme, Invloed nos. 394 and 389-391.
The rules on performance in natura after a non-conforming ("defective") tender has been made differ very much.
The uniform laws on international sales grant a right to performance in natura in case of "non-conforming" goods (cf. ULIS art. 42, 52; CISG art. 41, 46). However, the right to require delivery of substitute goods in CISG art. 46(2) is limited to cases of fundamental "breach of contract".
Recent European codifications tend to grant a right to demand cure of non-conformities. The DUTCH BW provides for such a right in case of lack of full title (art. 7:20) and in case of "non-conforming" goods (art. 7:21 litt. b) and c)). In DENMARK the Sale of Goods Act, which formerly provided only for a right to delivery of substitute goods in case of sale of generic goods (art. 43(1)), has been amended by the addition of a new � 78 which provides for consumer sales in general a right to demand cure of defects. The New Nordic Sale of Goods Act � 34 which is now in force in FINLAND [page 401] and SWEDEN provides a right (with certain limitations) to demand cure of defects in commercial sales in general. In PORTUGAL a right to have a defective performance corrected or to receive a new delivery is expressly provided for contracts of sale and for work (CC art. 914, 1221); it can be considered as an application of a general principle relating to defective performances (Jorge 479).
AUSTRIAN law provides in respect of all contracts for consideration a general right to have a defective performance cured: see ABGB � 932 (1) granting the aggrieved party the right either to demand reduction of the price, or the repair of the defect or the addition of missing parts of the performance by the party in breach: the exchange or repair of the defective piece may be seen as a type of performance.
In GERMANY a general right to have defects cured already exists for cases of third party claims (BGB �� 434, 440, and also �� 515, 523; cf. Larenz II/1, 27 ff.), for lack of quality in contracts for work (� 633) and - limited to a right to delivery of substitute goods - in case of sales of generic goods (BGB � 480). And it has been proposed that a rule should be introduced for all sales providing for a right to demand cure of defects consisting of lack of quality or quantity (Huber 765, 874 ff. who proposes a new � 461 a). GREEK, ITALIAN and SWISS law (for cases of lack of quality) are similar to the present state of German law (cf. Greek CC arts. 559 and 688; Italian CC art. 1482(2), 1512(2), 1668(1); Swiss CC art. 689, 206, 368(2)). In Greece it is acknowledged that there is, as a rule, no general right of the buyer to demand the remedying of defects (see Spiliopoulos in the Commentary to the Civil Code (Erm. AK) vol. III/1, Introductory remarks to arts. 534-562 no. 46 (1972); Aigaiou 41/1967, NoB 16 (1968) 195, 196 I). In SPANISH law, both writers and the courts accept that a buyer may demand cure in the form of replacement of defective goods (cf. CC arts. 1166, 1484 ff., 1553 and 1591; see Diez Picazo II, 670; Albaladejo II, 1 �� 23.5 and 31.3; Supreme Court 3 March 1979, 14 March 1981 and 28 June 1982.
In FRANCE and BELGIUM it is uncertain whether the non-performing party can be constrained to cure himself or to provide cure of a defective performance (generally, no distinction is made between cases where it is for the obligor or the obligee to have the cure made). Formerly, in such cases the Cour de cassation appeared to deny a duty of performance in natura (Cass. civ. 4 June 1924, S. 1925.1.97 with note Hugueney, D.P. 1927.1.136 with note Josserand; Cass. civ. 15 March 1968, D. 1968.346, S. 1968.1.100) but presently the courts are more flexible (cf. Viney, La responsabilité II nos. 14-36 with references).
In the exceptional cases set out in Article 9:101(2) and Article 9:102(2) and (3), an aggrieved party cannot require performance. Article 9:103 makes it clear that even in these cases the aggrieved party may recover damages. Damages are always available according to the rules of Section 9 unless the non-performance is excused under Article 8:108.
The same may be true in those cases in which the aggrieved party is required to conclude a cover transaction and has in fact done so (see Article 9:101(2) sub-paragraph (a) and Article 9:102(2) sub-paragraph (d)). The non-performing party would therefore no longer be entitled to tender performance.

References: art. 1
 art. 48
 art. 9
 v. 
 art. 9
 v. 
 art. 61
 art. 61
 art. 62
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 1184
 art. 1142
 art. 1143
 art. 1
 art. 1142
 art. 1184
 art. 817
 art. 1096
 art. 1124
 art. 28
 art. 16
 v. 
 art. 1184
 art. 336
 art. 828
 art. 3
 art. 79
 art. 829
 v. 
 art. 1142
 art. 2007
 art. 946
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 42
 art. 41
 art. 46
 art. 914
 art. 1482
 art. 689