Case name & citation: Cohen v Roche [1927] 1 KB 169
Area of law: Specific performance under contract law; Availability of substitute goods
Facts (Cohen v Roche)
The claimant owned a furniture shop and entered an agreement to purchase a quantity of Hepplewhite chairs to sell in his shop. The defendant, in breach of contract, refused to deliver the chairs. The claimant sued for breach of contract and sought specific performance for delivery of the chairs.
Decision
The court held that the sale was valid but ordered an award of damages rather than the order of specific performance sought by the claimant.
The claimant would be adequately compensated by an award of damages.
Legal principle
It was held that the chairs were ‘unremarkable’ and possessed no special feature that made them unique and irreplaceable. As such, the claimant could obtain substitute chairs from another source and an order of specific performance would not be appropriate.
References:
- https://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/Cohen-v-Roche.php
- https://legislativediv.portal.gov.bd/sites/default/files/files/legislativediv.portal.gov.bd/page/4e003fd0_cd24_4826_a89c_f1e74fe3ad0f/Contract%20Law_%20Uk%20Edition%20%28%20PDFDrive%20%29.pdf
You might also like:
More from contract law:
- Dougan v Ley (1946): A Case Summary
- A Quick Summary of Cowell v Rosehill Racecourse Co Ltd [1937]
- Taylor v Johnson (1983): A Case Summary
Ruchi is a legal research writer with an academic background in CA, MBA (Finance), and M.Com. She specializes in digesting and summarizing complex judicial decisions into clear and structured case notes for students and legal professionals.