a. Under the Code, when can an injured party seek the remedy of specific performance?
b. How does this rule differ from the common law?
c. Compare the remedies of replevin and specific performance. How are they alike? How are they different?

a. The Code seeks to further a more liberal attitude toward the availability of specific performance. It does not expressly require the remedy at law to be inadequate. Instead, the Code states that specific performance may be granted "where the goods are unique or in other proper circumstances."
b. At common law, specific performance is available only if the legal remedies are inadequate. For example, where the contract is for the purchase of a unique item such as a work of art or an heirloom, money damages are inadequate and a court will require the party in breach to perform according to the contractual terms.
c. Replevin is a legal remedy, whereas specific performance is an equitable one. The two are similar in that they both result in a court order directing that the goods be turned over to the aggrieved party. Replevin does not require that the goods be unique. It is frequently used in cases involving a security interest where the debtor has defaulted on the loan agreement and refuses to turn over the goods to the holder of the security interest.