1. Should courts ever be able to order specific performance of a contract? Why or why not? 2. In the Lumley v. Wagner case, was it fair to prevent Wagner from performing anywhere else? Why would money damages not be sufficient in this case, or would they? Should a performer be allowed to make an "efficient breach" of contract to secure a more lucrative payday? What if a performer contracted to perform at a venue with 1,000 seats with tickets at $100 each, but breached to perform at a venue with 10,000 seats with tickets at $150 each? Couldn't the lost profit of the first show be calculated and paid as money damages, while the performer makes much more money from the second show? Would that serve public policy? Why or why not?

case study below