Cohen v Roche
Specific performance will not be ordered for the sale of ordinary goods, such as furniture, that have no special value, because damages are an adequate remedy.
Facts
Mr Cohen bought a set of eight genuine Hepplewhite chairs at an auction. The seller refused to deliver them. Mr Cohen sued for specific performance. The chairs were ordinary items of furniture, and there was no evidence that they had any special or unique value.
Legal principle
McCardie J refused to order specific performance. He said that the chairs were ordinary articles of commerce, of no special value or interest, and that damages would be an adequate remedy for Mr Cohen. Specific performance of contracts for the sale of goods is exceptional, and the court has a discretion under what is now section 52 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. He awarded Mr Cohen damages instead.
Related cases on remedies in sale of goods
- Behnke v Bede Shipping Co Ltd [1927] 1 KB 649
- Bence Graphics International Ltd v Fasson UK Ltd [1998] QB 87
- Bernstein v Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd [1987] 2 All ER 220
- Cehave NV v Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH (The Hansa Nord) [1976] QB 44
- Charter v Sullivan [1957] 2 QB 117
- Clegg v Olle Andersson (The Hampton) [2003] EWCA Civ 320
- Hongkong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26
- J&H Ritchie Ltd v Lloyd Ltd [2007] UKHL 9, [2007] 1 WLR 670
Studying commercial law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
