Northern Delaware Indus. Development Corp. v. E.W. Bliss Co.
245 A.2d 431 (Del.Ch. 1968)
contracted to supply all labor, services, and equipment to build a large
steel fabrication factory.Work was not completed as fast as specified in the contract, and
Northern Delaware sued Bliss to force them to hire more workers and
complete the contract faster.
Court refused to grant specific performance.They claimed that
it would be inappropriate in view of the imprecision of the contract
provision and the impracticality of effective enforcement by the Court.
in the contract was the number of workers specified.However, there was a timeline that
Bliss has failed to meet.
Contracts §371 states that courts should
not order specific performance in any situation where it
would be impractical to carry out such an order.
to standard Contract Law, Northern Delaware could have hired more workers
under a new contract, and then sued Bliss for the cost of that new
determining damages would be a whole new can of worms.
Delaware argued that they were not asking for the Court to take over
administration of the project, just to issue an order.This would be a ministerial act. The Court denied this argument, claiming that precedence had been
established that there is a well established principle that
performance of a contract for personal services, even of a unique natures,
will not be affirmatively and directly enforced.
the argument that the Court shouldn't be saddled with supervising the
how in family law cases, school integration, and other areas, the Court
often supervises things.But
should that be the role of the court?