Fitzpatrick v. Michael; (Ct of Appeals of MD, 1939); CB 276; Notes 37
No specific performance for personal services
- Facts: P induces his nurse D to live w/ him until his death at which time she’ll inherit all his property. D only paid $8/wk but she’s relying on promise of P. P later holds D as trespasser and evicts her. Cause of action: breach of K; specific performance sought.
- Holding: P not entitled to any relief in equity b/c contract was for personal services.
- Commentary: Enrich calls this a mutuality flip: Court said that were D to seek specific performance against P it would reject suit, so neither should P be granted specific performance. Alternative provided by court (recovery of past wages due) is difficult since we might not be able to figure out how much the K was worth. P is not providing unique services like Dempsey was.
No comments:
Post a Comment