Which of the following can cause a breach of contract to require specific performance?

Specific performance is a remedy in contract law that compels a party to execute their contractual obligations as agreed, rather than simply awarding monetary damages for breach. This remedy is particularly applicable in situations where the subject matter of the contract is unique or where monetary damages would not suffice to remedy the harm caused by the breach.

The choice of inadequate damages as a condition for requiring specific performance is key. When a legal remedy, specifically monetary compensation, is inadequate to address the injury caused by a breach of contract, specific performance becomes a viable alternative. This can occur in cases involving unique goods, real estate, or other scenarios where substitution isn’t feasible or where damages cannot be easily computed.

In regards to the other options, their relevance to specific performance is limited. Contracts deemed unfair may raise concerns about enforceability rather than the appropriateness of specific performance. Torts relate to civil wrongs that do not arise from contracts and thus do not typically lead to a specific performance remedy. Punitive damages, on the other hand, are not a remedy associated with breach of contracts but rather are intended for deterrence in tort cases. Thus, they do not create a basis for demanding specific performance.