Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd [1997] 2 WLR 898

Facts

  • The case involved a dispute over a tenant's covenant to keep a supermarket open during usual business hours.
  • The landlord, Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd, sought the equitable remedy of specific performance to compel Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd, the tenant, to fulfil its ongoing operational obligation.
  • The contractual obligation in question required continued operation of the business, which would require the court to supervise the performance.

Issues

  1. Whether specific performance should be granted in relation to a contract involving an ongoing obligation to operate a business.
  2. Whether the nature of the obligation could be sufficiently defined and monitored by the court.
  3. Whether compelling performance would impose undue hardship on the defendant.
  4. Whether alternative remedies, such as damages, would be more appropriate.

Decision

  • The House of Lords declined to order specific performance, emphasizing that such remedies are generally inappropriate for ongoing contractual obligations requiring continuous supervision.
  • The court found that enforcing the "keep open" covenant would require the judiciary to oversee daily business operations, which is outside the proper role of the courts.
  • The imprecision of the obligation ("usual business hours") and related commercial judgments rendered specific performance impracticable.
  • The potential for hardship was identified, as compelling the defendant to run a loss-making business would cause substantial financial detriment.
  • Damages were recognized as the more appropriate remedy for breaches of ongoing obligations in such circumstances.

Legal Principles

  • Specific performance is generally not granted for contracts requiring ongoing obligations that involve court supervision.
  • Equitable relief may be refused where the terms of the obligation are imprecise or require courts to make complex commercial judgments beyond their competency.
  • Courts will balance the hardship imposed on defendants when considering equitable remedies; they will not use specific performance as a punitive measure.
  • Exceptions exist only where ongoing obligations are clearly defined, easily monitored, and do not cause significant hardship.
  • Damages are the preferred remedy for breaches of contractual obligations involving complex or ongoing performance.

Conclusion

The House of Lords clarified that specific performance is generally unsuitable for contracts requiring ongoing supervision, particularly when the obligations are imprecise and enforcement would cause hardship; damages remain the primary remedy except in clearly defined and exceptional cases.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal