Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]

Cumbest v. Harris | 363 So.2d 294 (1978)

Specific performance is the performance of the exact duty described in a contract. In a breach-of-contract case, a court might order specific performance as a remedy if awarding damages would be inadequate to restore the injured party to his original position. This typically occurs in transactions involving unique or custom-made goods, such as the much-loved stereo system at the heart of Cumbest versus Harris.

Donald Cumbest had spent 15 years assembling a stereo system that he used to play music and make professional recordings. The parts were carefully matched and chosen to function together. Many of the components were no longer available for purchase and would’ve been difficult or impossible to replace. Cumbest had designed and built some of the components himself. He felt a certain sentimental attachment to this system in which he’d invested so much.

In May of 1976, Cumbest found himself in need of cash. Bedford Harris agreed to purchase the system from him. The transaction was intended to function as a short-term loan, with the audio equipment serving as collateral. Cumbest and Harris prepared a contract that gave Cumbest an option to buy back the system on or before 5:00 p.m. on June 7th. The men signed the agreement and had it notarized.

On June 7th, Cumbest attempted to repurchase his equipment. From early morning until late in the evening, he made every effort humanly possible to find Harris and pay him back. Harris purposely avoided him all day long. Finally, that evening, Cumbest gave Harris’s landlady the money.

When a week went by without the restoration of his sound system, Cumbest filed a lawsuit in chancery court seeking equitable relief. He asked the court to order specific performance of the contract, by ordering Harris to give the sound system back to him.

The court allowed a hearing to determine whether the property was unique enough to fall within the exception to the general rule that a court couldn’t decree specific performance of a contract involving personal property. Cumbest testified as to the system’s character, his years of working in the stereo industry, and the irreplaceability of the components. He explained that some items could only be obtained after long waiting periods, and that he was so attached to the system that he wouldn’t consider selling it at any price. The chancellor held that the sound system wasn’t sufficiently unique to fall within the exception. The court dismissed Cumbest’s complaint. Cumbest appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]

The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

свернуть