## Facts

- A motel owner contracted with a contractor to furnish and install a heating system for a new motel and to guarantee the system would heat the premises to 75°F in winter while supervising the work.
- The owner alleged the contractor installed an undersized and defective system, performed in an unworkmanlike manner, and failed to complete the installation.
- The owner sued in equity seeking an order compelling completion and proper performance, and also sought monetary damages for defective work and related losses.
- The contractor asserted, among other defenses, that the parties mutually cancelled the contract as to completion; the trial court found no mutual cancellation on conflicting evidence.
- The chancellor required an election of remedies; the owner elected specific performance and dismissed the damages claim without prejudice.
- The trial court entered a mandatory decree ordering the contractor to comply with the contract “in its entirety,” and the contractor appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether equity may order specific performance of a contract requiring a contractor to furnish and install a complex heating system where performance entails technical judgment and skill.
2. Whether money damages provide an adequate remedy at law, making specific performance unavailable.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the decree of specific performance.
- It held that specific performance was not an appropriate remedy for this type of construction/installation contract.
- The owner was remitted to a legal remedy for damages for defective and incomplete performance.

## Legal Principles

- Equity generally refuses specific performance of construction or installation contracts that depend on personal skill, technical judgment, and discretionary choices.
- Specific performance is disfavored when enforcement would require continuing judicial supervision of performance details and compliance.
- When damages can measure the cost to complete or correct the work and related losses, the legal remedy is adequate and equitable relief is improper.

## Conclusion

Because the contract required technical work and discretionary decisions and a decree would require ongoing court supervision while monetary damages could compensate the owner, the appellate court reversed the order of specific performance and limited the owner to a damages remedy.


London Bucket Co. v. Stewart, 237 S.W.2d 509 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951)