Ryan v. Ocean Twelve, Inc.
316 A.2d 573 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court of equity will not grant specific performance of a building or construction contract if it would be impractical for the court to supervise the work, especially when the defects are numerous and varied, and an adequate remedy at law, such as monetary damages, is available.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs are the owners of eight residential units in the 'Ocean Eight Condominium' complex.
- Defendant, Ocean Twelve, Inc., was the developer and builder of the condominium.
- At the time of purchase, Ocean Twelve, Inc. had not completed all construction work on the units but promised to finish a list of deficiencies for each unit post-settlement.
- Ocean Twelve, Inc. also provided each buyer with an 'Agreement of Warranty' against defective material and workmanship.
- After the sales, Ocean Twelve, Inc. allegedly failed to complete the promised work and breached its warranties.
- The alleged defects were numerous and varied, including a faulty air conditioning system causing water damage, a leaky roof, a noisy and odorous central sewage system, defective appliances, and an improperly secured seawall.
Procedural Posture:
- The owners of eight condominium units (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against the developer, Ocean Twelve, Inc. (Defendant), in the Delaware Court of Chancery (a court of equity).
- The complaint sought an order of specific performance to compel the Defendant to complete construction and honor its warranties, or alternatively, a judgment for damages.
- Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law.
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 court of equity have jurisdiction to order specific performance to compel a developer to complete and repair numerous, varied, and complex construction defects across multiple condominium units when a legal remedy for monetary damages is available?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown, Vice Chancellor
No. A court of equity will not order specific performance in this situation because it is an inappropriate and impractical remedy. The general rule is that equity will not order specific performance of a building contract where it is impractical to carry out such an order unless special circumstances exist. For specific performance to be granted, the terms of the obligation must be fixed and definite enough to allow for effective judicial supervision. Here, the alleged defects are numerous, vary between eight separate units, and rectifying them would depend on the subjective satisfaction of each plaintiff. Supervising such a complex, lengthy, and varied series of corrective acts would be impractical, if not impossible, for the court. Because compensatory damages can provide the same ultimate relief by allowing the plaintiffs to hire others to make the repairs, an adequate remedy at law exists, and equity will not assume jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the traditional doctrine limiting the use of specific performance as an equitable remedy for breaches of construction contracts. It emphasizes the principle that equity will not act when an adequate remedy at law, such as monetary damages, is available. The court's focus on the impracticality of judicial supervision serves as a key precedent, guiding future courts to deny specific performance for complex, non-standardized repair work. This decision directs plaintiffs in similar situations to seek monetary damages in courts of law, solidifying the jurisdictional boundary between law and equity in the context of construction disputes.
Unlock the full brief for Ryan v. Ocean Twelve, Inc.