This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Law High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Paras 3 and 6 are specific to the United States and should be made universal or so qualified. The remainder is OK from an English perspective. Chris R 20:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of the use of specific performance in English Land Law, which is one of the main ways to create equitable interests in land. The ruling of Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) is of paramount importance. Juice07 (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"in specie" is used but Wikipedia doesn't define it with its legal meaning. in specie doesn't list the intended meaning as far as I can see. And when it does, this page should link directly there. -- Ralph Corderoy (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph on civil law should be extended and clarified. Better than "specific performance is considered to be the basic right" would be: "specific perfomance is considered to be the primary remedy", a term frequently used for "money damages are a kind of 'substitute specific performance" is "pecuniary damages are used as damages in lieu of performance" (though I understand if the former wording was used because it is less technical). Examples of specific performance as the primary remedy in civil law are §241(1) BGB and art. 1184 Code Civil. Source: Furmtson, P.M. Specific performance or the remedy of damages?, Ars Aequi 47, (1998), pp. 403-406. --Jon503a (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph on injunctions is unsourced and I think it is spurious, so I am going to delete it for the moment, though I have no objection to it being put back in if it is properly checked and verified. My understanding, which is confirmed by our article equitable remedy, is that Specific Performance arises when the judge directs the defendant to fulfil a contract in a specific way. This is parallel to a mandatory injunction, where the judge directs the defendant to act in a specific way to alleviate an injury. The difference between the two is that the former is a remedy in contract law, the latter in the law of torts. It is therefore misleading to say that the one is a subset of the other. However I am an interested layman with no legal training, and could be completely wrong here - if the claim were backed by a reliable source, I wouldn't be sticking my oar in. Doric Loon (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Doric Loon, thank you. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]