Alabama Sports Marketing should not seek for the specific performance of the contract for Gump. Specific performance in most cases is used on the instances where the remedies for the damages caused cannot be quantified easily or in the event that there is no plan for actions for remedies for the damages caused. In the current context, the remedies for any damages caused during the contract is already agree upon from the start of the contract which is to pay the aggrieved party a sum of $2 million. Additionally, in order to create the advent of equity, seeking of the specific performance would not be the best option. In the first case, the specific performance would force Gump to fulfil the deal on the contract for which he might not perform as required making the whole contract lack the adherence to the principle of equity. Low performance standards would be making the marketing company not get the best value for their money. Monetary damages would therefore be properly enunciated for this breach by Gump (Ulen, 2014).This reasoning is strengthened by the case between Clyatt Vs. United States that ruled that there should be no specific performance on employment contracts. This contract is also of the same nature and should be treated as such.
Question Two: Validity of Liquidated Damage Clause
One of the ways in which the court would determine whether the liquidated damages clause is valid is by looking legal stance of the contract. From the stipulations of the contract, it was deemed within the confines of the law and the parties entered into the contract without any undue pressure (willingly) (Schwartz, 2009). There was the consideration where the Marketing company would give Gump 20% of the proceeds and Gump would offer his services. in addition to this, there was the notion of contract offer and acceptance which was deemed definite and lawfully contractual (Kronman, 2008). Gump agreed to the contract through the signing of the papers without any undue pressure which makes it quite valid in this case. The parties to this contract were also having good legal mental capacity while they were signing these contract. The connotations mentioned above should act as guideline on accentuating whether the clause was valid on or not by affirming that the real contract was also valid (Lorenzen, 2011).
DISTRICT, O. A. PRESTON u. FERRER.
Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U.S. 204, 122 S. Ct. 708, 151 L. Ed. 2d 635 (2002).
Kronman, A. T. (2008). Specific performance. The University of Chicago Law Review, 45(2), 351-382.
Lorenzen, E. G. (2011). Validity and Effects of Contracts in the Conflict of Laws (Part 2).
Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S. Ct. 495, 30 L. Ed. 2d 427 (1971).
Schwartz, A. (2009). The case for specific performance. The Yale Law Journal, 89(2), 271-306.
Ulen, T. S. (2014). The efficiency of specific performance: Toward a unified theory of contract remedies. Michigan Law Review, 83(2), 341-403.
Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S. Ct. 495, 30 L. Ed. 2d 427 (1971)
 DISTRICT, O. A. PRESTON u. FERRER.