Contracts, by their nature, are meant to outline and define a particular agreement between several individuals, groups, corporation, or parties. They must, however, also take into account the possibility that the agreement entered into will one day fall apart, or that the parties that amicably entered into the agreement will eventually attempt to find a way out of that very agreement. Any attempt by one party to violate the terms of the contract, "get out of" the contract, or failure to live up to the contract in general is referred to as a breach of that contract. When a contract is breached, the key question that the parties to the contract must ask themselves before going to court is "what do I hope to gain by suing the party who breached the agreement."

The answer to the above question is essentially one of the three things. Sometimes the party suing for breach wants to ask the court for 'money damages' as a result of the other party's failure to live up to their end of the contract. This is not, however, the only remedy or relief someone can ask a court for. The second option is to ask the court for an 'injunction', which means that the court is asked to require the breaching party either do, or not do, something. An example of this would be a party that sues a company for copyright infringement and asks the court issue an injunction stopping the copyright infringer from selling infringing products. The final relief that a party can request is 'specific performance', which means that they ask that the breaching party be forced to carry out its obligations under the original contract. This often takes place in the real estate context where courts find that if a party breaches their duty to sell a piece of property, requiring them to pay money will not compensate the wronged party because property is unique and money damages cannot replace that unique land. As a result, courts will often force the party that failed to live up to its promise to sell land to carry out its agreement.

Courts usually prefer money damages, but each of the remedies described is favored by courts depending on the particular circumstances. One of the most important things to realize in this regard is that courts first look to the contract of the parties, even when it comes to the relief to be granted in the case of breach. This means that if two parties care deeply that their contract be specifically performed, they can write that into the contract and courts will typically accept that provision limiting remedies that a court should grant.

In conclusion, it is important that any party suing another for breach of contract, as well as many other areas think through exactly what relief they plan to request from the court, and what kinds of relief are likely to be granted. Moreover, parties entering into a contract should determine if particular kinds of relief of crucial to the formation of the contract, and if so, include those limitations on relief/remedies into the contract. As with all legal matters, contract law varies state to state and specific question in this regard should be referred to an experienced lawyer in the relevant state.

The author of this article can be reached via email at Justice360@muslimcongress.org. For more information about Justice360, visit http://www.muslimcongress.org/360.

DISCLAIMER: Justice360° Legal Bulletin’s are meant to assist in the general understanding of the current law relating to the stated topics. JUSTICE360° LEGAL BULLETINS SHOULD NOT BE REGARDED AS LEGAL ADVICE. Organizations or individuals with specific questions should seek the advice of legal counsel.