Editing Specific performance (section)

== Legal debate ==
There is an ongoing debate in the legal literature regarding the desirability of specific performance. Economists, generally, take the view that specific performance should be reserved to exceptional settings, because it is costly to administer and may deter promisors from engaging in [[efficient breach]]. Professor Steven Shavell, for example, famously argued that specific performance should only be reserved to contracts to convey property and that in all other cases, money damages would be superior.<ref>{{Cite journal|title = Specific Performance versus Damages for Breach of Contract|ssrn = 868593|date = 2005-11-01|location = Rochester, NY|first = Steven|last = Shavell| doi=10.2139/ssrn.868593 }}</ref> In contrast, many lawyers from other philosophical traditions take the view that specific performance should be preferred as it is closest to what was promised in the contract.<ref>{{Cite journal|title = The Divergence of Contract and Promise|ssrn = 959211|date = 2007-01-24|location = Rochester, NY|first = Seana|last = Shiffrin}}</ref> There is also uncertainty arising from empirical research whether specific performance provides greater value to promisees than money damages, given the difficulties of enforcement.<ref>{{Cite journal|title = Contract Remedies in Action: Specific Performance|ssrn = 1641438|date = 2015-01-16|location = West Virginia Law Review|first = Yonathan A.|last = Arbel| doi=10.2139/ssrn.1641438 | s2cid=156489028 }}</ref>