§6.7 - Equitable Defenses

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§6.7 EQUITABLE DEFENSES

This section discusses the circumstances in which a court will deny specific performance as an equitable remedy.

(1) Inequitable enforcement

Specific performance is an equitable remedy and rests within the sound discretion of the court. Sheldon v. Hallis, 72 Wn.2d 993, 435 P.2d 988 (1967); Paradiso v. Drake, 135 Wn.App. 329, 143 P.2d 859 (2006), review denied, 160 Wn.2d 1024 (2007). The party seeking relief must have acted in good faith, and the remedy will be denied when it would be inequitable to compel the defendant to perform, when performance by the defendant is impossible, or when the plaintiff is guilty of laches in failing to pursue the remedy diligently. Hallauer v. Certain, 19 Wn.App. 372, 575 P.2d 732, review denied, 90 Wn.2d 1015 (1978). The Washington Supreme Court in Nelson v. Nelson, 57 Wn.2d 321, 356 P.2d 730 (1960), set forth the general rule: "It is well established that a contract may be perfectly legal, and not subject to rescission, yet a decree of specific performance will be denied if the result is unconscionable, inequitable and unfair." Id at 321. Specific performance has been denied when the consideration for the property was determined to be grossly inadequate and it would impose a hardship on the defendant. Pasco Fruit Lands Co. v. Timmermann, 88 Wash. 112, 152 P. 675 (1915). In Voight v. Fidelity Investment Co., 49 Wash. 612, 96 P. 162 (1908), specific performance was denied when the plaintiff vendee failed to make payments on the contract for a period of two years and offered to tender full performance only after it became clear that the value of the land had greatly increased.

Specific performance also will be denied when the rights of innocent third parties have intervened so that "enforcement of the...