## Facts

- The case concerned a farm lease agreement in which Johnson (defendant) agreed to grant Coatsworth (plaintiff) a 21-year lease.
- The lease required Coatsworth to farm the land with “reasonable care consistent with farming practices.”
- Evidence established that Coatsworth failed to farm in a “husband-like manner” as required by the agreement.
- The term “husband-like manner” was explained as managing the land according to standard agricultural methods of the time, as customary in farming contracts.

## Issues

1. Whether Coatsworth had fulfilled all contractual obligations, specifically farming in a “husband-like manner,” prior to the enforcement of the lease.
2. Whether failure to satisfy this condition precedent precluded the remedy of specific performance.
3. Whether courts may deny specific performance even where a valid contract exists if the claimant has not performed required duties.

## Decision

- Justice Kay found that Coatsworth’s breach of the farming standard constituted a failure of a key contractual term.
- As Coatsworth had not fulfilled the condition precedent, he was denied specific performance of the lease.
- The court confirmed that equitable relief such as specific performance requires the claimant to have fully performed their own obligations under the contract.

## Legal Principles

- Specific performance is a discretionary equitable remedy, only available when monetary damages are inadequate.
- Conditions precedent must be met before a party can enforce contractual obligations in equity.
- A party seeking specific performance must demonstrate complete performance of their own material obligations.
- The decision reinforces that courts will not grant equitable remedies to parties who have not observed essential preconditions.

## Conclusion

The court in Coatsworth v Johnson (1886) 54 LT 520 denied specific performance because the claimant failed to meet a condition precedent, affirming that equitable relief is unavailable to parties who have not fulfilled their own contractual obligations. The case highlights the necessity of complying fully with contractual terms, especially when seeking court-ordered enforcement in property disputes.
