By Dr Craig Wright, as edited and published by his editors on craigwright.net.
When the court decides there has been a breach, there are many remedies at its disposal.
One solution is to require specific performance. As such, a breaching party is required to fulfil the contract as written.
[Image: description to follow]
For example: Person A has a written contract to sell a piece of real property to person B. A may then turn around and sell the house to C. The law requires that the house go to B.
A major reason for specific performance is that courts do not have to spend time estimating damages to B. Such a contract can easily be determined within a smart contract.
The reason for such a thing is that damage determination can be difficult, and the court would have to determine how much B valued the house at and subtract the price of the house to calculate B’s loss.
As value is subjective, it may not be easy to calculate; B has a reason to exaggerate, and then objective evidence may be refuted or not support such claims.
In other cases, specific performance is not easy to achieve. In such a case, bargaining of power amongst the various parties can create scenarios leading to different damage remedies.
Sometimes, such a scenario may even lead to zero damages; consequently, any smart contract that is not purely based on specific performance as detailed within a contract could easily be overturned or subject to legal review.
First published on craigwright.net on 27 December 2018. This copy was made on 19 September 2026 from the Internet Archive snapshot of 1 March 2024; that snapshot is no longer publicly available. Republished on BSVSearch with Dr Wright's permission - about this archive.