## Facts

- A. J. McCallister ordered a new Ford automobile from dealer R. H. Patton on September 15, 1945, and paid a $25 deposit.
- The order was placed in a numbered sequence to be filled as cars arrived; McCallister alleged he was number 37.
- McCallister alleged Patton later received more than 37 cars of the type ordered but refused to deliver one to McCallister.
- McCallister alleged new automobiles were scarce after World War II and that he could not obtain a comparable vehicle elsewhere.
- McCallister sued in chancery court seeking specific performance rather than damages.

## Issues

1. Whether a purchaser of a standard consumer automobile may obtain specific performance of a sales contract based on postwar scarcity and difficulty obtaining a substitute.
2. Whether the complaint alleged facts showing legal damages were inadequate, as required for equitable relief compelling delivery of personal property.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the chancery court’s order sustaining Patton’s demurrer and dismissing the complaint.
- The court held specific performance was unavailable because the complaint did not show that damages would be an inadequate remedy.
- The court treated the automobile as ordinary personal property lacking the special characteristics that justify specific performance.
- The court rejected market scarcity, standing alone, as a basis to treat the automobile as unique for purposes of equitable relief.

## Legal Principles

- Specific performance for contracts involving personal property is exceptional and generally requires a showing that the item has special, peculiar, or unique qualities making damages inadequate.
- A plaintiff seeking specific performance must plead facts demonstrating the inadequacy of legal remedies; conclusory allegations of inadequacy are insufficient.
- General market scarcity or difficulty procuring a substitute does not, by itself, transform a standard consumer good into a unique chattel warranting specific performance.
- Absent special value to the buyer (such as particular, sentimental, or otherwise noncompensable value), monetary damages are ordinarily adequate for breach of a contract to sell an automobile.

## Conclusion

The court refused to compel delivery of the ordered Ford because the complaint failed to allege facts establishing uniqueness or other circumstances making money damages inadequate, and postwar scarcity alone did not justify specific performance of a contract for an ordinary automobile.


McCallister v. Patton, 214 Ark. 293, 215 S.W.2d 701 (Ark. 1948)