Which statement about stipulations for rendering services in lieu of payment is not correct?

Which statement about stipulations for rendering services in lieu of payment is not correct?

• A. If the services will be rendered in satisfaction of the debt, the stipulation is valid.
• B. If the services will be 'for free', the stipulation is void for being contrary to law and morals.
• C. If the services will not be gratuitous, specific performance of the service will be the proper remedy in case of non-compliance.
• D. Should there be a valid stipulation as regards the rendition of services, an action for damages should be brought in case of non-compliance.

Answer: (C)

When a debt is to be settled by the debtor rendering a service instead of paying cash, the important idea is how breaches are handled. If the stipulation is valid and the service is not gratuitous (i.e., it has value to the creditor), the debtor’s failure to perform the service is treated as non-fulfillment of a contractual obligation. However, enforcement is not through forcing the exact performance of personal service. Courts generally do not compel a person to provide a specific personal service; instead, the creditor is entitled to damages for the breach, representing the value of the unperformed service and any resulting losses. So saying that the proper remedy is specific performance isn’t correct. The appropriate remedy is to bring an action for damages. This aligns with the rule that, for stipulations to render services in lieu of payment, damages prevail as the remedy upon non-compliance, rather than specific performance.

When a debt is to be settled by the debtor rendering a service instead of paying cash, the important idea is how breaches are handled. If the stipulation is valid and the service is not gratuitous (i.e., it has value to the creditor), the debtor’s failure to perform the service is treated as non-fulfillment of a contractual obligation. However, enforcement is not through forcing the exact performance of personal service. Courts generally do not compel a person to provide a specific personal service; instead, the creditor is entitled to damages for the breach, representing the value of the unperformed service and any resulting losses. So saying that the proper remedy is specific performance isn’t correct. The appropriate remedy is to bring an action for damages. This aligns with the rule that, for stipulations to render services in lieu of payment, damages prevail as the remedy upon non-compliance, rather than specific performance.