## Facts

- R.C. Wilson placed a written order with J.W. Fortner’s Chevrolet agency (January 1947) to buy a new Chevrolet sedan at list price plus ordinary handling, freight, and accessory costs.
- Wilson paid a $100 deposit and received an order number (“44”) reflecting anticipated delivery sequence.
- Before delivery, Fortner informed Wilson he would not deliver unless Wilson provided a used “trade-in” vehicle on stated allowance and repurchase terms.
- When a qualifying new Chevrolet arrived, Fortner again conditioned delivery on the trade-in requirement, which was not part of the original agreement.
- Wilson was found ready, willing, and able to pay the full price in cash and tendered full payment; Fortner refused delivery absent a trade-in.
- Wilson presented evidence that new Chevrolets were scarce and obtainable only through secondary channels at substantially higher prices; he claimed he bought a comparable car at increased cost.
- Wilson sued for specific performance to compel delivery of a new Chevrolet under the original contract; the trial court granted specific performance after a bench trial.

## Issues

1. Whether a buyer is entitled to specific performance of an automobile sales contract when the seller refuses delivery and comparable cars are scarce and available only at higher prices through secondary channels.
2. Whether a mass-produced automobile becomes a “unique chattel” for equity purposes merely because it is difficult to obtain.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the decree of specific performance.
- The court directed entry of judgment for Fortner, leaving Wilson to pursue legal damages.
- The court held that the automobile was not unique and that Wilson had an adequate remedy at law.

## Legal Principles

- Contracts for the sale of personal property are generally not specifically enforced when money damages provide an adequate remedy.
- Specific performance for an automobile sale will be denied absent proof that the particular automobile has special, peculiar qualities not commonly possessed by others of the same make, making it practically impossible to obtain on the market.
- Difficulty in procuring an automobile, without more, does not render it a “unique chattel” warranting specific performance.
- When the buyer’s loss is measurable (e.g., the difference between contract price and replacement price), damages are considered adequate and equity relief is improper.

## Conclusion

Specific performance was unavailable because a standard, mass-produced automobile is not unique merely due to scarcity, and the buyer’s injury from nondelivery could be fully addressed through an award of damages.


Fortner v. Wilson, 202 Okla. 563, 216 P.2d 299 (Okla. 1950)