Kate was a very wealthy tech entrepreneur who recently purchased a new headquarters building for her company in Austin, Texas. Like most wealthy tech entrepreneurs, Kate wanted to flex her wealth under the guise of promoting public art. She commissioned none other than Banksy, the famous political activist street artist, to paint a one-of-a-kind mural on the side of her building. They signed a valid, written contract for the transaction.

Before Banksy could start the mural (and before any money changed hands), Banksy learned that a significant portion of Kate's wealth came from her investments in defense contractor companies. Banksy, who has spent a significant part of his professional life making art criticizing violence and war, refused to complete the commission.

Kate sues Banksy for breaching their contract. She asks the court to order Banksy to specifically perform the contract to paint the mural. After all, there is only one Banksy, so no other artist can provide an adequate substitute for his work.

The court agrees that Banksy's work is unique, but refuses to order specific performance as a remedy.

Why?

Group of answer choices

Because there are other political activist artists available for hire.

Because the judge hates art that he doesn't understand.

Because Kate should have anticipated that her investments in defense contractors would offend an artist like Banksy.

Because the contract between Kate and Banksy is a personal service contract.