RC Question 27 Explanation
DISCUSSION: The author’s position on employment contract cases was in the third paragraph: they think monetary damages should be preferred where possible. Courts often lack the resources to enforce specific performance in such cases, and ordering it would often lead to great personal hardship for both the plaintiff and defendant in such cases.
To strengthen this position, we should show either that:
- Money is available, or
- It is generally distasteful to employers/employees to undergo specific performance.
___________
- This weakens the author’s argument. If courts can’t enforce monetary damages, then it’s not clear why money is preferred over specific performance.
- This just puts everything on an even footing. Also, it’s obvious, and therefore doesn’t add much. Any court order is coercion: “do what we say, or go to jail”. So this answer tells us nothing new.
- CORRECT. The author argued that instead of specific performance, courts should award money. This shows that the defendants actually have money to award.
- Why would this matter? The author didn’t talk much about contracts for services in general. And “different” could go either way: it could mean different in a way that argues for or argues against using specific performance. Without knowing which way things are different, this answer tells us nothing.
- The author suggests generally it is employers who sue potential employees (who refused to work). I am not quite sure what this answer is getting at. I think it is saying: sometimes, employees’ rights are more important than employers’ financial loss, and therefore the employer loses their contract case.
I could use some clarification on (C).
The way I read P3 and the author’s argument is that the argument is conditional upon monetary compensation being possible; therefore, I don’t see how adding in that “monetary compensation is usually possible” strengthens the argument.
I’m looking especially at the following lines: “Even if a court had the resources necessary to ensure that such a contract would be enforced according to its terms, it would often do better to avoid imposing such uncomfortable conditions. Awarding monetary compensation [i][b]where possible[/b][/i] in such cases permits the court to steer clear…”
Help??? Thanks!
I agree completely. I think this question is just a bad question. B is the best answer no matter how I look at it.
The way I think about B, and I think what Graeme was trying to get at, is that it’s obvious that all court remedies involve coercion. I don’t think anyone’s contesting that – whether it’s damages or specific performance, it’s coercion. But that doesn’t strengthen the argument. The author is trying to show that specific performance can be uniquely problematic because of the type of coercion involved, i.e. forcing someone to perform a service they don’t want to or forcing an employment relationship. Imagine responding to that with “well, all court remedies are coercive!” Sure, that’s true, but how does that strengthen the author’s argument? At best, it does nothing to impact the argument because it’s an obvious point. At worst, it might slightly weaken it by suggesting remedies are coercive anyways so what does it matter.
On the other hand, C supports a major assumption behind the author’s preference: that monetary compensation is a realistic alternative in these cases. It confirms that courts can award money instead of enforcing performance, which is exactly what the author is arguing for.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have further questions or disagree.