The Empirical Case for Specific Performance: Evidence from the IBP‐Tyson Litigation

Yair Listokin

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2005, vol. 2, issue 3, 469-493

Abstract: Contract scholars debate the relative merits of specific performance and damages, but few studies assess remedies from an empirical perspective. This article examines the stock market response to an unusual specific performance award granted to IBP, Inc. in material adverse change (MAC) clause litigation against Tyson Foods, Inc. The combined value of Tyson and IBP rose after specific performance was granted, implying that specific performance created value. This result contrasts with other papers indirectly showing large decreases in combined market value after damages remedies are awarded. These results suggest that, from a postbreach perspective, the common law's preference for damages may be misplaced. The article identifies a number of settings, such as certain types of MAC clause controversies, wherein the use of specific performance rather than damages should be encouraged.

Date: 2005
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2005.00058.x

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:empleg:v:2:y:2005:i:3:p:469-493

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Empirical Legal Studies from John Wiley & Sons
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().