McCallister v. Patton
215 S.W.2d 701, 1948 Ark. LEXIS 503, 214 Ark. 293 (1948)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract for the sale of personal property, such as a mass-produced automobile, will not be specifically enforced where the item is not unique and any harm from the breach can be adequately compensated by money damages, even if the item is temporarily scarce.
Facts:
- On or about September 15, 1945, A. J. McCallister entered into a contract with R. H. Patton, a Ford dealer, to purchase a new Ford Super Deluxe Tudor Sedan.
- At the time, new automobiles were scarce, and Patton was taking orders and assigning numbers for future deliveries. McCallister's order was number 37.
- McCallister paid a $25 deposit as part of the purchase price, which was refundable at his option if he chose to cancel the order.
- The contract specified that delivery would occur "as soon as possible out of current or future production."
- Patton received a shipment of more than 37 new Ford cars but refused to sell one to McCallister per their agreement.
- McCallister alleged he was unable to purchase a similar automobile on the open market due to the widespread scarcity.
Procedural Posture:
- A. J. McCallister (plaintiff) filed a suit for specific performance against R. H. Patton (defendant) in the chancery court (a court of equity/trial court).
- Patton filed a demurrer to the complaint, arguing that the facts alleged were insufficient to justify the remedy of specific performance.
- The Chancellor (the trial judge) sustained the demurrer.
- McCallister refused to plead further, and the trial court dismissed his complaint.
- McCallister (as appellant) appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of Arkansas.
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 contract for the sale of a new, mass-produced automobile, which is temporarily scarce due to market conditions, warrant the equitable remedy of specific performance?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Millwee
No. A contract for the sale of a new, mass-produced automobile does not warrant specific performance. The general rule is that courts of equity will not enforce specific performance for the sale of chattels unless a legal remedy, such as money damages, is inadequate. This exception typically applies only when the property has a peculiar, unique, or sentimental value that cannot be measured in money. Although new automobiles were difficult to obtain, a standard Ford sedan is not a unique chattel; thousands were being produced. The complaint fails to allege any special qualities about this particular car or any harm or inconvenience that could not be fully compensated by an award of damages in an action at law for breach of contract.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the high threshold for granting specific performance for contracts involving the sale of goods. It establishes that mere market scarcity of a mass-produced item does not transform it into a 'unique' good for the purposes of equitable relief. The ruling solidifies the principle that unless a chattel has an intrinsic, unique quality (like a famous painting or a one-of-a-kind business), the buyer's remedy for a breach of contract is limited to money damages. This prevents courts of equity from having to supervise routine commercial transactions and maintains the traditional distinction between remedies for real property (which is always unique) and personal property.
Unlock the full brief for McCallister v. Patton