Cumbest v. Harris
363 So.2d 294 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court of equity may grant specific performance for a contract involving personal property if the property is of peculiar, sentimental, or unique value, or is not readily obtainable, rendering the legal remedy of monetary damages inadequate.
Facts:
- Donald Ronnie Cumbest spent fifteen years acquiring and assembling a complex hi-fi stereo system consisting of twenty carefully matched parts.
- Cumbest, who had experience in the audio field, personally designed and built several components, including speaker cabinets, to meet the specific needs of his system.
- Many integral parts of the system were irreplaceable, such as a specific reel-to-reel recorder and a quadraphonic decoder, while others required special orders with waiting periods of up to two years.
- On May 19, 1976, Cumbest and Bedford Harris executed a bill of sale for the equipment, along with a separate option agreement allowing Cumbest to repurchase it by a specific date.
- Cumbest alleges the transaction was intended as a loan, with the stereo serving as collateral.
- On the final day of the option period, June 7, 1976, Cumbest attempted to pay Harris the repurchase price, but alleges Harris deliberately avoided him to prevent the transaction.
- Unable to find Harris, Cumbest deposited the required amount of money with Harris's landlord that evening.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald Ronnie Cumbest filed a bill of complaint against Bedford Harris in the Chancery Court of Jackson County, Mississippi (a trial court of equity).
- Cumbest sought an injunction to prevent the sale of his stereo system and an order for specific performance of the repurchase agreement.
- The Chancery Court held a hearing limited solely to the question of whether the stereo system was sufficiently unique to warrant equitable relief.
- The Chancellor ruled that the property was not of a unique or sentimental value and dismissed Cumbest's bill of complaint.
- Cumbest, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of Mississippi; Harris is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a custom-assembled stereo system, built by an individual over fifteen years with some irreplaceable and difficult-to-obtain components, have such a peculiar and unique value as to justify the equitable remedy of specific performance?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Walker
Yes, a custom-assembled stereo system built over many years with irreplaceable components possesses the unique value required for a court to grant specific performance. While specific performance is not ordinarily granted for contracts involving personal property, exceptions exist where there is no adequate remedy at law, such as when property is of peculiar, sentimental, or unique value, or is not readily obtainable. Here, Cumbest's uncontradicted testimony established that some components were irreplaceable, others were scarce, and he had personally designed and built parts over a fifteen-year period to create a matched system. This combination of factors gives the property a unique value, making the legal remedy of monetary damages inadequate and justifying the intervention of a court of equity.
Analysis:
This case clarifies and broadens the 'unique value' exception for granting specific performance of contracts involving personal property. It establishes that uniqueness is not limited to items of traditional artistic or antique value, but can extend to a collection of commercially-produced items that have been assembled with unique skill, effort, and time into a synergistic whole. The decision provides a precedent for parties seeking the return of custom-built systems or curated collections, emphasizing that if the sum of the parts creates a unique whole that cannot be replicated on the open market, equitable relief is appropriate. This liberalizes the availability of specific performance for complex personal property.
Unlock the full brief for Cumbest v. Harris