0

I don't understand why Mandatory Injunction v. Specific Performance — Other differences except that specific performance can't be awarded interim? was closed?

This question needs details or clarity.

What "details or clarity" do you need? Thanks.

1

In the style of several frequent trolls, you've copy-pasted a large swath of text with bold seemingly arbitrarily added throughout, and asked a very vague question that seems tangentially related.

Since it was closed by a moderator rather than by the community at large, I am led to a preliminary conclusion you are also such a troll, and moderator intervention was based on additional evidence to support that fact.

In the event that this is totally coincidental and the conclusion incorrect, the question remains unclear, in that it's an open-ended discussion prompt with no particular motivation. Others may provide feedback on how to improve it, but that would suggest that it needed improvement in order to be answered, and so closure was correct regardless.

2
  • 1
    As for whether a post that requires improvement should be closed... that's one of the intended purposes of closure: preventing answer posts that are later invalidated because they made assumptions or fell the wrong side of ambiguity. The system is set up a particular way for good reason; ignoring the network's existence doesn't make it go away.
    – Nij
    Oct 11 at 10:20
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – feetwet Mod
    Oct 12 at 13:41
1

Iñaki Viggers' reply (with one minor alteration), and especially the emboldened first sentence, clearly sets out my reasons to vote for closure due to lack of clarity - and in a more lucid and coherent way than I could hope to achieve:

What makes you think that there could be any other differences? what specific considerations do you propose these two authors might have missed/overlooked in the books they fully devoted to contract law? Outlining a reasonable scenario where such differences can may arise would make us aware of the relevance of your question and therefore prompt us to address it thoughtfully enough even if posting an answer requires us to do research.

With hindsight, I should have left a suitable comment along these lines - my apologies for not doing so at the time.

0

What "details or clarity" do you need?

Your post is well sourced and I would not have expected it to get closed. The users who VTC can elaborate on what exactly prompted them to do so. My feedback is only on how you could improve your post.

Your sources --and more clearly the latter-- portray the interim award as the only difference between these terms. What makes you think that there could be any other differences? what specific considerations do you propose these two authors might have missed/overlooked in the books they fully devoted to contract law? Outlining a reasonable scenario where such differences can arise would make us aware of the relevance of your question and therefore prompt us to address it thoughtfully enough even if posting an answer requires us to do research.

Some of us tend to disregard questions that sound like trivia or of merely encyclopedic nature. That is because questions requiring pointless erudition hardly enhance one's understanding (including ours) of the law. Your post in its current form seems to be in that category, and it is up to you to change our mind.

You must log in to answer this question.