A famous singer contracted with a concert hall to perform two shows each night for seven days in a row. A few days before the shows were to begin, a stadium down the street offered to pay the singer twice as much to perform the same shows, at the same times and on the same nights as the singer had agreed to perform at the original concert hall. The singer immediately called the concert hall's booking agent and stated that she (the singer) would not perform under the original contract because she wished to move her shows to the stadium. The concert hall would lose a substantial amount of goodwill in the industry, which loss would be impossible to calculate or prove, by a cancellation of the singer's shows so close to the time of performance, as well as by the resulting public perception that the singer preferred the stadium as a venue.

If the concert hall brings suit in the proper court, what would be the concert hall's most promising basis, if any, for directly or indirectly enforcing the original contract?

Group of answer choices

The concert hall should ask the court to order specific performance of the original contract (and should ask for provable damages in the alternative).

The concert hall should ask the court to order an injunction prohibiting the singer from performing at the stadium on the dates and times of the original contract (and should ask for provable damages in the alternative).

The concert hall has no promising basis to enforce the contract, although it may be able to recover damages in the form of lost profits.

The concert hall has no promising basis to enforce the contract, although it may be able to recover damages for both lost profits and loss of good will.