Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Equitable Remedies
20 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Equitable RemediesQuestion 1 of 20

Seller refuses to transfer closely held shares after a valid contract. Specific performance?

No; shares have market price.
Yes; no market for shares.
No; securities are not goods.
Yes; all stock is unique.
← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Equitable Remedies

Practice Equitable Remedies in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Equitable Remedies, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Seller refuses to transfer closely held shares after a valid contract. Specific performance?

  1. No; shares have market price.
  2. Yes; no market for shares. (correct answer)
  3. No; securities are not goods.
  4. Yes; all stock is unique.
Explanation: Because the shares are closely held, no ready market exists, so money damages can't adequately compensate you. Specific performance is available when the subject matter is unique, and closely held stock fits that test. The tempting mistake is saying securities aren't goods; even if Article 2 doesn't govern, equity still orders transfer of unique property.

Question 2

In a contract for a house sale, which parties may seek specific performance?

  1. Buyer only; land is unique.
  2. No one; damages are adequate.
  3. Either party; land is unique. (correct answer)
  4. Seller only; land is unique.
Explanation: Land is considered unique, so money damages don't adequately protect either side. A buyer can force the seller to convey the property, and a seller can force the buyer to complete the sale. The tempting mistake is thinking only the buyer needs the land, but the seller's interest is also tied to this specific parcel.

Question 3

A singer with a unique voice refuses to perform under a valid contract. May the theater compel the performance?

  1. No; damages are sufficient.
  2. No; services are not coerced. (correct answer)
  3. Yes; the voice is unique.
  4. Yes; contract made is valid.
Explanation: A valid contract with a unique singer does not let a court force her to sing. Courts will not compel personal services because that would be coercing someone to work against her will; the theater's remedy is damages. The tempting uniqueness point supports only barring her from performing elsewhere, not forcing the performance itself.

Question 4

Seller breaches a contract to sell Buyer a one-of-a-kind painting. Can Buyer compel delivery?

  1. Yes; the painting is unique. (correct answer)
  2. No; damages are adequate.
  3. Yes; all contracts compel.
  4. No; goods never warrant it.
Explanation: Because the painting is one of a kind, money damages can't put you in the same position, so the UCC allows specific performance compelling delivery. The tempting opposite view is that damages are adequate, but that fails for unique goods: no substitute exists on the market.

Question 5

Buyer cannot cover standardized steel because a strike halts supply. Specific performance?

  1. No; steel is not unique here.
  2. No; buyer must first cover.
  3. No; only unique goods qualify.
  4. Yes; cover is impossible here. (correct answer)
Explanation: Because a strike leaves you unable to cover the standardized steel, this qualifies as other proper circumstances for specific performance under UCC 2-716 even though the steel isn't unique. The tempting mistake is focusing on uniqueness alone; uniqueness is one route, but impossibility of cover is another. Thus yes, specific performance is available.

Question 6

A high-end restaurant had a long-term written contract to purchase the entire annual output of figs from a specific, small orchard known for a rare and exceptionally flavorful variety. No other orchard in the country grows this particular variety. In the third year of the contract, the orchard owner received a substantially higher offer from a foreign buyer and repudiated the contract with the restaurant. The restaurant sued for specific performance.

  1. The court will likely deny specific performance because figs are a type of good for which money damages are presumed adequate.
  2. The court will likely grant specific performance because the figs are effectively unique and cover is not reasonably available. (correct answer)
  3. The court will likely deny specific performance because an output contract is too indefinite as to quantity.
  4. The court will likely grant specific performance only if the restaurant can prove the orchard owner breached in bad faith.
Explanation: Under the UCC, specific performance may be granted where goods are unique or in other proper circumstances. While figs are generally not unique, the figs from this specific orchard—a rare and exceptionally flavorful variety that cannot be obtained elsewhere—are effectively unique for the restaurant's purposes. Because the restaurant cannot 'cover' by purchasing these specific figs elsewhere, its legal remedy of damages is inadequate, and specific performance is appropriate.

Question 7

Two parties signed a written agreement to create a joint venture to restore and sell vintage cars. The agreement stated they would 'contribute capital as needed,' 'jointly decide on which cars to purchase,' and 'share profits fairly.' After they purchased one car, one party refused to contribute further capital or labor. The other party sued for specific performance, asking the court to order the breaching party to continue participating in the venture as agreed.

  1. The court will likely grant specific performance because the parties had a written contract evidencing a meeting of the minds.
  2. The court will likely deny specific performance because the essential terms of the agreement are too indefinite for the court to enforce. (correct answer)
  3. The court will likely deny specific performance because restoring vintage cars is a personal service not subject to equitable remedies.
  4. The court will likely grant specific performance because the suing party has already relied on the agreement by purchasing a car.
Explanation: For a court to grant specific performance, the contract's terms must be sufficiently definite and certain to allow the court to frame an order and know what it is enforcing. Terms like 'contribute capital as needed' and 'share profits fairly' are too vague. The court cannot determine the specific obligations of the parties from this language, making it impossible to order and supervise performance. Therefore, specific performance will be denied due to indefiniteness.

Question 8

A seller contracted in writing to convey a 50-acre property to a buyer. A survey conducted before closing revealed that the seller only possessed marketable title to 45 acres. The remaining five acres belonged to the seller's estranged cousin, who refused to sell her interest. The buyer still wished to proceed with the purchase of the 45 acres. The buyer sued the seller, seeking specific performance.

  1. The court will deny specific performance because the seller cannot deliver marketable title to the entire property as contracted.
  2. The court will order the seller to acquire the outstanding five acres from the cousin and convey the full 50 acres.
  3. The court will rescind the contract entirely due to the parties' mutual mistake regarding the seller's title.
  4. The court will grant specific performance for the 45 acres with a proportional abatement of the purchase price. (correct answer)
Explanation: This question tests your understanding of specific performance remedies when a seller cannot deliver complete marketable title but the buyer wants to proceed anyway. When a seller cannot convey the exact property described in the contract due to title defects, courts have several options. The key principle here is that if the buyer still wants to purchase the portion the seller can actually convey, and the deficiency isn't substantial, courts will often allow the transaction to proceed with appropriate price adjustments. The correct answer is D because courts will grant specific performance for partial delivery when: (1) the buyer requests it, (2) the seller can convey marketable title to the available portion, and (3) the court can calculate a fair price reduction. Here, the seller owns 45 of 50 acres (90% of the property), which isn't a substantial deficiency, and the buyer explicitly wants to proceed. Answer A is wrong because while the seller cannot deliver the full 50 acres, this doesn't automatically bar specific performance when the buyer accepts partial performance with price adjustment. Answer B is incorrect because courts cannot force third parties (the cousin) to sell their property - they lack jurisdiction over her. Answer C misapplies mutual mistake doctrine; there's no indication both parties were mistaken about the title when contracting, and the buyer's willingness to proceed shows no desire to rescind. Remember: When you see title defect problems, check whether the buyer wants to proceed anyway. If the deficiency is minor and the buyer accepts, courts often allow specific performance with proportional price reduction rather than killing the deal entirely.

Question 9

A buyer and a seller executed a valid land sale contract. Before the closing date, the seller received a higher offer from a third party. The seller accepted the higher offer, immediately transferred the deed to the third party, who paid value and had no knowledge of the prior contract. The third party promptly recorded the deed. The original buyer then learned of the sale and sued the seller for specific performance.

  1. The court will deny specific performance because the seller has conveyed the property to a bona fide purchaser for value. (correct answer)
  2. The court will grant specific performance by ordering the third party to convey the property to the original buyer.
  3. The court will grant specific performance because the first contract was valid, giving the buyer equitable title to the property.
  4. The court will deny specific performance only if the jurisdiction follows a race-notice recording statute.
Explanation: This question tests your understanding of specific performance in real estate contracts and how the bona fide purchaser doctrine operates as a defense. When a seller breaches a land sale contract by conveying to another party, you must analyze whether specific performance is still possible and appropriate. The correct answer is A because once a seller conveys property to a bona fide purchaser for value who takes without notice of prior claims, specific performance becomes impossible. The third party here paid value, had no knowledge of the original contract, and recorded the deed—making them a protected bona fide purchaser. Courts cannot order specific performance when the subject property is no longer available due to such a conveyance, as it would violate the rights of an innocent third party. Answer B is wrong because courts will not disturb the title of a bona fide purchaser for value who acquired rights without notice of prior claims. This would undermine the security of real estate transactions. Answer C incorrectly assumes that the buyer's equitable title always trumps subsequent transfers. While the original contract did give the buyer equitable rights, these rights are subject to the seller's ability to convey clear title to good faith purchasers. Answer D is incorrect because the bona fide purchaser doctrine protects innocent third parties under all recording statutes (race, notice, and race-notice), not just race-notice systems. The type of recording statute affects priority among competing claimants but doesn't eliminate the fundamental protection for bona fide purchasers. Remember: When specific performance involves real estate already conveyed to an innocent third party, courts will deny the remedy and limit the original buyer to monetary damages.

Question 10

A seller contracted in writing to convey a 50-acre property to a buyer. A survey conducted before closing revealed that the seller only possessed marketable title to 45 acres. The remaining five acres belonged to the seller's estranged cousin, who refused to sell her interest. The buyer still wished to proceed with the purchase of the 45 acres. The buyer sued the seller, seeking specific performance.

  1. The court will deny specific performance because the seller cannot deliver marketable title to the entire property as contracted.
  2. The court will order the seller to acquire the outstanding five acres from the cousin and convey the full 50 acres.
  3. The court will rescind the contract entirely due to the parties' mutual mistake regarding the seller's title.
  4. The court will grant specific performance for the 45 acres with a proportional abatement of the purchase price. (correct answer)
Explanation: This question tests your understanding of specific performance remedies when a seller cannot deliver complete marketable title but the buyer wants to proceed anyway. When a seller cannot convey the exact property described in the contract due to title defects, courts have several options. The key principle here is that if the buyer still wants to purchase the portion the seller can actually convey, and the deficiency isn't substantial, courts will often allow the transaction to proceed with appropriate price adjustments. The correct answer is D because courts will grant specific performance for partial delivery when: (1) the buyer requests it, (2) the seller can convey marketable title to the available portion, and (3) the court can calculate a fair price reduction. Here, the seller owns 45 of 50 acres (90% of the property), which isn't a substantial deficiency, and the buyer explicitly wants to proceed. Answer A is wrong because while the seller cannot deliver the full 50 acres, this doesn't automatically bar specific performance when the buyer accepts partial performance with price adjustment. Answer B is incorrect because courts cannot force third parties (the cousin) to sell their property - they lack jurisdiction over her. Answer C misapplies mutual mistake doctrine; there's no indication both parties were mistaken about the title when contracting, and the buyer's willingness to proceed shows no desire to rescind. Remember: When you see title defect problems, check whether the buyer wants to proceed anyway. If the deficiency is minor and the buyer accepts, courts often allow specific performance with proportional price reduction rather than killing the deal entirely.

Question 11

An aunt promised her nephew in a signed writing that if he quit his job and cared for her full-time for the rest of her life, she would leave her home to him in her will. The nephew performed as agreed for five years. The aunt then had a disagreement with the nephew, told him she was revoking her will, and ordered him to leave. The nephew, while the aunt is still alive, sued for specific performance, asking the court to order the aunt to execute a new will naming him as the beneficiary of the house.

  1. The court will grant specific performance because the nephew fully performed his side of the bargain.
  2. The court will grant specific performance because the subject matter of the contract is land, which is unique.
  3. The court will deny specific performance because contracts concerning inheritance are against public policy.
  4. The court will deny specific performance because a will is freely revocable by the testator until death. (correct answer)
Explanation: This question tests the intersection of contract law and wills/estates law, specifically whether courts can enforce contracts that attempt to control the distribution of property at death. The correct answer is D because wills are inherently revocable instruments until the testator's death. This is a fundamental principle of wills law - a person cannot irrevocably commit to leaving property to someone in a will while still alive. Even though the aunt made a contractual promise, courts cannot order specific performance of creating or maintaining a will because doing so would violate the testator's absolute right to revoke or modify their will at any time before death. Let's examine why the other options fail: A is incorrect because full performance by one party doesn't automatically guarantee specific performance when the remedy would violate fundamental legal principles. The nephew's performance doesn't override the aunt's right to control her will. B misapplies the uniqueness doctrine - while land is indeed unique and typically supports specific performance in ordinary real estate contracts, this doesn't apply when the transfer mechanism (a will) is legally revocable. C overstates the law - contracts concerning inheritance aren't automatically against public policy, but enforcing them through specific performance of will creation is problematic for different reasons. Study tip: Remember that wills law principles can override contract remedies. When you see a question involving promises to leave property in a will, immediately consider whether the requested remedy conflicts with the fundamental rule that wills remain revocable until death. Contract performance doesn't trump testamentary freedom.

Question 12

An art collector owned three paintings by a famous modern artist. He entered into a written agreement with a museum to sell 'my modern masterpiece' to the museum for $2 million. All three paintings could plausibly be described as 'modern masterpieces' and have similar values. When the museum tendered payment, the collector refused to deliver any of the paintings. The museum sued for specific performance, asking the court to order the collector to deliver one of the three paintings.

  1. The court will deny specific performance because the contract is too ambiguous as to its subject matter. (correct answer)
  2. The court will grant specific performance and allow the museum to choose which of the three paintings it will take.
  3. The court will grant specific performance because paintings by a famous artist are unique goods.
  4. The court will deny specific performance because the museum can be compensated with money damages.
Explanation: This question tests your understanding of when courts will grant specific performance, particularly when contract terms are ambiguous about the subject matter. When a contract's terms are too vague or ambiguous to determine what specific performance should entail, courts cannot and will not order specific performance. Here, the phrase "my modern masterpiece" is fatally ambiguous because it could refer to any of the three paintings. A court cannot craft a meaningful order when it's unclear exactly what the parties agreed to exchange. Answer A is correct because the ambiguous language makes specific performance impossible to enforce. The court has no basis for determining which painting the parties intended to trade. Answer B is wrong because allowing the museum to choose would essentially rewrite the contract terms. Courts don't grant specific performance by letting one party unilaterally select from multiple possibilities that could satisfy ambiguous language. Answer C incorrectly focuses on the uniqueness of artwork. While paintings are indeed unique goods that typically qualify for specific performance, uniqueness alone doesn't overcome fatal ambiguity about which specific painting was the subject of the contract. Answer D misses the mark by suggesting money damages are adequate. The issue isn't whether monetary compensation suffices—it's that the court cannot determine what performance to order when the contract language is unclear about the subject matter. Study tip: Remember that specific performance requires certainty about contract terms. When you see ambiguous language about what exactly must be performed, think "too vague to enforce specifically" before analyzing whether the goods are unique or damages are adequate.

Question 13

A landowner and a developer entered into a written contract for the sale of a 10-acre parcel of undeveloped land for $500,000. The contract required the developer to pay a $25,000 earnest money deposit within five business days. The developer, distracted by another project, paid the deposit on the sixth business day. The landowner accepted and deposited the check without comment. A week later, before the closing date, a corporation offered the landowner $750,000 for the same parcel. The landowner accepted the new offer and informed the developer that their original contract was terminated due to the late deposit. The developer sued for specific performance.

  1. The court will likely deny specific performance because the developer's prior breach excused the landowner's performance.
  2. The court will likely deny specific performance because money damages are an adequate remedy for the developer.
  3. The court will likely grant specific performance because the land is unique and the landowner waived the developer's minor breach. (correct answer)
  4. The court will likely grant specific performance only if the developer agrees to match the corporation's offer of $750,000.
Explanation: Specific performance is the presumptive remedy for a breach of a contract for the sale of land because each parcel of land is considered unique. The developer's one-day delay in paying the earnest money deposit was a minor breach. By accepting and depositing the late payment without objection, the landowner waived the condition that payment be made within five days. Therefore, the landowner cannot use this minor, waived breach to escape the contract. The developer is entitled to an order compelling the landowner to sell the property under the original contract terms.

Question 14

An art collector owned three paintings by a famous modern artist. He entered into a written agreement with a museum to sell 'my modern masterpiece' to the museum for $2 million. All three paintings could plausibly be described as 'modern masterpieces' and have similar values. When the museum tendered payment, the collector refused to deliver any of the paintings. The museum sued for specific performance, asking the court to order the collector to deliver one of the three paintings.

  1. The court will deny specific performance because the contract is too ambiguous as to its subject matter. (correct answer)
  2. The court will grant specific performance and allow the museum to choose which of the three paintings it will take.
  3. The court will grant specific performance because paintings by a famous artist are unique goods.
  4. The court will deny specific performance because the museum can be compensated with money damages.
Explanation: This question tests your understanding of when courts will grant specific performance, particularly when contract terms are ambiguous about the subject matter. When a contract's terms are too vague or ambiguous to determine what specific performance should entail, courts cannot and will not order specific performance. Here, the phrase "my modern masterpiece" is fatally ambiguous because it could refer to any of the three paintings. A court cannot craft a meaningful order when it's unclear exactly what the parties agreed to exchange. Answer A is correct because the ambiguous language makes specific performance impossible to enforce. The court has no basis for determining which painting the parties intended to trade. Answer B is wrong because allowing the museum to choose would essentially rewrite the contract terms. Courts don't grant specific performance by letting one party unilaterally select from multiple possibilities that could satisfy ambiguous language. Answer C incorrectly focuses on the uniqueness of artwork. While paintings are indeed unique goods that typically qualify for specific performance, uniqueness alone doesn't overcome fatal ambiguity about which specific painting was the subject of the contract. Answer D misses the mark by suggesting money damages are adequate. The issue isn't whether monetary compensation suffices—it's that the court cannot determine what performance to order when the contract language is unclear about the subject matter. Study tip: Remember that specific performance requires certainty about contract terms. When you see ambiguous language about what exactly must be performed, think "too vague to enforce specifically" before analyzing whether the goods are unique or damages are adequate.

Question 15

An aunt promised her nephew in a signed writing that if he quit his job and cared for her full-time for the rest of her life, she would leave her home to him in her will. The nephew performed as agreed for five years. The aunt then had a disagreement with the nephew, told him she was revoking her will, and ordered him to leave. The nephew, while the aunt is still alive, sued for specific performance, asking the court to order the aunt to execute a new will naming him as the beneficiary of the house.

  1. The court will grant specific performance because the nephew fully performed his side of the bargain.
  2. The court will grant specific performance because the subject matter of the contract is land, which is unique.
  3. The court will deny specific performance because contracts concerning inheritance are against public policy.
  4. The court will deny specific performance because a will is freely revocable by the testator until death. (correct answer)
Explanation: This question tests the intersection of contract law and wills/estates law, specifically whether courts can enforce contracts that attempt to control the distribution of property at death. The correct answer is D because wills are inherently revocable instruments until the testator's death. This is a fundamental principle of wills law - a person cannot irrevocably commit to leaving property to someone in a will while still alive. Even though the aunt made a contractual promise, courts cannot order specific performance of creating or maintaining a will because doing so would violate the testator's absolute right to revoke or modify their will at any time before death. Let's examine why the other options fail: A is incorrect because full performance by one party doesn't automatically guarantee specific performance when the remedy would violate fundamental legal principles. The nephew's performance doesn't override the aunt's right to control her will. B misapplies the uniqueness doctrine - while land is indeed unique and typically supports specific performance in ordinary real estate contracts, this doesn't apply when the transfer mechanism (a will) is legally revocable. C overstates the law - contracts concerning inheritance aren't automatically against public policy, but enforcing them through specific performance of will creation is problematic for different reasons. Study tip: Remember that wills law principles can override contract remedies. When you see a question involving promises to leave property in a will, immediately consider whether the requested remedy conflicts with the fundamental rule that wills remain revocable until death. Contract performance doesn't trump testamentary freedom.

Question 16

A professional basketball team signed a star player to a three-year contract that included a clause prohibiting him from playing for any other team during the contract term. In the second year, the player announced his retirement but then immediately signed a more lucrative contract with a rival team. The original team sued, seeking an injunction to prevent the player from playing for the rival team for the remainder of his contract term.

  1. The court will deny the injunction because it is an indirect attempt to compel specific performance of a personal services contract.
  2. The court will deny the injunction because the team can sign a replacement player and sue for money damages.
  3. The court will grant the injunction because the player's services are unique and the contract contained a negative covenant. (correct answer)
  4. The court will grant the injunction only if the player's breach was motivated solely by financial gain.
Explanation: While a court will not compel a person to perform a personal service, it may grant a negative injunction to prevent them from working for a competitor if two conditions are met: (1) the services are unique or extraordinary, and (2) the contract contains a negative covenant (an agreement not to perform for others). A star athlete's services are considered unique. Here, the contract had an explicit negative covenant. Therefore, the court is likely to enjoin the player from playing for the competitor.

Question 17

A large bakery contracted to buy 50,000 pounds of all-purpose flour from a supplier at a set price. Subsequently, a poor wheat harvest caused the market price of flour to increase by 50%. The supplier refused to deliver the flour, breaching the contract. The bakery was able to purchase the same quantity and quality of flour from another supplier, although it had to pay the higher market price. The bakery sued the original supplier for specific performance to compel delivery at the contract price.

  1. The court will grant specific performance because the supplier breached in bad faith to take advantage of a market price increase.
  2. The court will grant specific performance because the contract was for a large and specific quantity of commercial goods.
  3. The court will deny specific performance because the flour is a fungible good and the bakery was able to cover. (correct answer)
  4. The court will deny specific performance because ordering delivery would impose an excessive hardship on the supplier.
Explanation: Specific performance is not an available remedy for breach of a contract for the sale of fungible goods that are readily available on the open market. All-purpose flour is a classic example of a fungible good. The bakery was able to 'cover' by purchasing substitute flour from another source. Its remedy is legal, not equitable: the bakery can sue for money damages, measured as the difference between the contract price and the cover price.

Question 18

A prospective buyer of a commercial property falsely informed the owner, an elderly widow with little business experience, that a new environmental regulation was about to be enacted that would require a costly cleanup of the property, making it nearly worthless. In reality, no such regulation was being considered. Relying on this false information, the widow signed a contract to sell the property to the buyer for a fraction of its actual value. Before closing, the widow's son discovered the deception, and the widow refused to sell. The buyer sued for specific performance.

  1. The court will grant specific performance because the contract was in writing and land is unique.
  2. The court will deny specific performance based on the doctrine of unclean hands. (correct answer)
  3. The court will grant specific performance, but it will reform the contract to a fair market price to prevent injustice.
  4. The court will deny specific performance because the contract is void for lack of consideration.
Explanation: Specific performance is an equitable remedy, and a plaintiff seeking it must come to the court with 'clean hands.' The doctrine of unclean hands bars a plaintiff who has engaged in misconduct, such as fraud or misrepresentation, in connection with the matter in dispute. Here, the buyer procured the contract through a deliberate and material misrepresentation. This fraudulent conduct taints the transaction and will cause a court of equity to refuse to grant specific performance.

Question 19

A prestigious orchestra entered into a two-year employment contract with a world-renowned conductor. The contract gave the conductor full artistic control over the orchestra's season. Six months into the contract, the conductor accepted an offer from a rival orchestra in another city and announced her intention to leave. The orchestra sued the conductor, seeking an order of specific performance to compel her to complete the remaining term of her contract.

  1. The court will likely grant specific performance because the conductor's services are unique and cannot be readily replaced.
  2. The court will likely grant specific performance because calculating the orchestra's damages from the loss of a renowned conductor would be too speculative.
  3. The court will likely deny specific performance because it would constitute involuntary servitude and be difficult for the court to supervise. (correct answer)
  4. The court will likely deny specific performance unless the contract contained a liquidated damages clause, which would then be enforced.
Explanation: Courts will not grant specific performance for personal services contracts. There are two primary reasons for this rule. First, compelling a person to perform a service against their will raises concerns of involuntary servitude under the Thirteenth Amendment. Second, it is impractical and undesirable for a court to supervise the performance to ensure it meets the contract's standards. Even though the conductor's services are unique, the court will not order her to continue working.

Question 20

A company paid a developer $50,000 in full, upfront, for a five-year software license and ongoing technical support. The developer delivered the software but then refused to provide any support, breaching the contract. The company sued for specific performance of the technical support provision. The developer argued that specific performance should be denied due to a 'lack of mutuality of remedy,' because a court could not have forced the company to perform its obligation (paying money) through specific performance.

  1. The developer's argument will succeed because mutuality of remedy requires that specific performance be available to both parties at the time of contracting.
  2. The developer's argument will fail because the company has already fully performed its contractual obligation. (correct answer)
  3. The developer's argument will succeed because ongoing technical support is a personal service that is difficult for a court to supervise.
  4. The developer's argument will fail because the UCC governs software licenses and favors the availability of specific performance.
Explanation: The modern view on mutuality of remedy does not require that both parties be able to secure specific performance. Instead, it requires that the court be able to ensure that the defendant will receive the counter-performance they bargained for. Here, the company has already fully performed by paying the entire contract price. Thus, there is no risk that the developer will be compelled to perform without receiving the company's performance in return. The developer's argument based on the outdated, strict mutuality rule will fail.