The enforcement of specific performance is discretionary with the court, and the court must be satisfied not only that there was a valid contract, but that its enforcement would be equitable and just.68 "It must appear that the enforcement will work no hardship and injustice, for, if that result would follow, the court will leave the parties to their remedy at law, unless the granting of the specific relief can be accomplished with conditions which will obviate that result." 59

54De Mattos v. Gibson, 4 De Gex & J. 276; Buxton v. Lester, 3 Atk. 384; Hapgood v. Rosenstock (C. C.) 23 Fed. 86; Adams v. Messinger, 147 Mass. 185, 17 N. E. 491, 9 Am. St. Rep. 679; Hull v. Pitrat (C. C.) 45 Fed. 94; Eaton, Eq. 527. See "Specific Performance," Dec. Big. (Key-No.) § 69; Cent. Dig. §§ 200-202.

55 Wilson v. Railway Co., L. R. 9 Ch. App. 279; Grape Creek Coal Co. v. Spellman, 39 I11. App. 630. See "Specific Performance" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 73-75; Cent. Dig. §§ 206-210.

56 Lumley v. Wagner, 1 De Gex, M. & G. 616; Webb v. England, 29 Beav. 44; Clark's Case, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 122, 12 Am. Dee. 213; Rutland Marble Co. v. Ripley, 10 Wall. 339, 19 L. Ed. 955; WM. ROGERS MFG. CO. v. ROGERS, 58 Conn. 356, 20 Atl. 467, 7 L. R. A. 779, 18 Am. St. Rep. 278, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 415. See "Specific Performance," Dec. Dig. (Key-Ifo.) § 73; Cent. Dig. §§ 206-208.

57Lumley v. Wagner, 1 De Gex, M. & G. 616. And see McCaull v. Bra-ham (C. C.) 16 Fed. 37; Duff v. Russell, 133 N. Y. 678, 31 N. E. 622; Cort v. Lassard, 18 Or. 221, 22 Pac. 1054, 6 L. R. A. 653, 17 Am. St. Rep, 726; Port Clinton R. Co. v. Railroad Co., 13 Ohio St. 544; Daly v. Smith, 38 N. V. Super. Ct 158; Id., 49 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 150; Richardson v. Peacock, 26 X. J. Eq. 40. Cf. Davis v. Foreman [1894] 3 Ch. 651; Rice v. D'Arville, 162 Mass. 559, 39 X. E. 180; Welty v. Jacobs, 171 I11. 624, 49 X. E. 723, 40 L. R. A. 9S. In this country, however, an injunction will be granted only where the services contracted to be performed are peculiar, unique, or extraordinary. WM. ROGERS MFG. CO. v. ROGERS, 58 Conn. 356, 20 Atl. 4(57, 7 L. R. A. 779, 18 Am. St. Rep. 278, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 415; H. W. Gossard Co. v. Crosby, 132 Iowa, 155, 109 N. W. 483, 6 L. R. A. (S. S.) L115, and note. See "Specific Performance" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 73; Cent. Dig. §§ 206-208.

Same - Discharge Of Right Of Action

265. The right of action arising from a breach of contract can only be discharged in one of three ways:

(a) By the consent of the parties.

(b) By the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.

(c) By lapse of time.

Same - Discharge By The Consent Of The Parties

266. Discharge by the consent of the parties may take place either -

(a) By release, which is a gratuitous waiver of the right of action, and must therefore be under seal.

(b) By accord and satisfaction, which is an agreement to discharge the right of action based on a consideration which is executed.60