1)For a contract to be legal and binding it must have an offer, acceptance, intention of legal consequences and consideration. In this case the contact that Barry and Sally had would be legal and binding therefore Barry is entitled.
Yes, Barry should be entitled to punitive damages. The purpose of punitive damages is to punish the defendant for outrageous misconduct and to deter the defendant and others from similar misbehavior in the future. For Sally to enter into an agreement with Tom after she was in one with Barry is an act of bad faith, and possible fraud.
2)According to Jennings, specific performance is an order of the court requiring a defendant to perform on a contract.
Since Sally and Barry signed a contract, yes Barry should be entitled to specific performance.
Specific performance will grant Barry (the plaintiff) what he actually bargained for in the contract which is the painting for $10,000.
Punitive Damages as defined in the legal-dictionary is “Monetary compensation awarded to an injured party that goes beyond that which is necessary to compensate the individual for losses and that is intended to punish the wrongdoer.”
Barry and Sally had a written contract and not a verbal contract.Also Barry’s oral evidence only indicates that Sally did not intent to sell him the painting when she entered the contract.Therefore Barry is not necessarily entitled to punitive damages.
Specific performance according to the legal-dictionary states “By compelling the parties to perform exactly what they had agreed to perform, more complete and perfect justice is achieved than by awarding damages for a breach of contract.”This means that Barry is definitely entitled to specific performance.