The current level of damages awarded is the outcome of balancing the various policies identified in Chapter 13. If we accept the validity of policies such as the avoidance of waste and undue harshness to defendants, and the desirability of mitigation of loss by the claimant, then under-compensation to that extent is inevitable. Such policies should not be evaded by simply choosing specific performance.
On one view, automatic specific enforcement may amount to ‘over-compensation’, because [2.1] it allows the claimant to sell the right to specific performance for [2.2] more than the true value of the performance to him or her (Lord Hoffmann in Cooperative Insurance v Argyll Stores).
How's 2.1 true? I'm assuming that contracts ordinarily don't allow either party to sell the right to specific performance, if the contract doesn't stipulate such selling.
How's 2.2 true?