The case of City Stores v. Ammerman (266 F.Supp. 766 (D.D.C. 1967)) was unusual because it is one of the few times when a Court mandated specific performance in a breach of contract suit. City Stores had signed a contract with a developer named Ammerman to lease a store in a fancy new mall, but Ammerman tried to back out. Instead of just awarding City Stores monetary damagesfor the breech of contract, the Court ordered Ammerman to give City Stores the lease.

  • In this case, the Court found that the prestige of being in a new mall was a unique opportunity (there weren’t many malls back then), so monetary damages weren’t a sufficient remedy. In addition, the Court felt that there was a very specific plan and supervision would not be required.
  • See also the similar case of Northern Delaware Indus. Development Corp. v. E.W. Bliss Co. (245 A.2d 431 (Del.Ch. 1968)).
    • These cases are examples of how modern courts are beginning to order specific performance more often.