Civil Law and UAE Specific Performance Concept

1. Introduction

Specific performance is a contractual remedy under which the court requires the defaulting party to perform the obligation actually promised, rather than merely paying monetary compensation.

For example:

• a seller is ordered to complete the agreed transfer of property;
• a contractor is required to rectify defective work;
• a party is required to deliver an identified asset;
• a contracting party is required to execute documents necessary to complete an agreed transaction;
• a party is required to perform an obligation to do or refrain from doing something.

Specific performance has traditionally occupied an important position in UAE civil law. Under the new Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025 on the Civil Transactions Law, effective 1 June 2026, specific performance remains the default contractual remedy, but the new law introduces an express proportionality limitation where performance would be unduly onerous for the debtor and monetary compensation would not cause substantial prejudice to the creditor.

2. Meaning of Specific Performance

Specific performance means:

Compelling the debtor to perform the obligation in the manner originally required by the contract.

It is sometimes called:

• performance in kind;
• performance in specie;
• compulsory performance;
• execution in kind.

Example

A agrees to sell a particular plot of land to B.

A later refuses to complete the transaction.

B may seek an order requiring A to complete the contractual obligations rather than simply asking for damages.

The underlying idea is:

Contractual obligation → breach → court order for actual performance.

3. Specific Performance Under the New UAE Civil Transactions Law

The current Civil Transactions Law is Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, which replaced Federal Law No. 5 of 1985 from 1 June 2026.

The new provisions on specific performance are principally contained in Articles 331–337.

Article 331 — Specific Performance

Article 331 establishes specific performance as the primary remedy where the contractual obligation has been breached.

The important innovation is that Article 331(2) gives the court a proportionality-based discretion where specific performance would be excessively burdensome for the debtor and limiting the remedy to monetary compensation would not cause substantial prejudice to the creditor.

Thus, the modern rule can be expressed as:

Specific performance is the starting point, but it is not absolutely automatic.

4. Conditions for Specific Performance

Generally, the claimant must establish:

1. Valid obligation

There must be a legally enforceable obligation.

2. Breach or non-performance

The debtor must have:

• failed to perform;
• delayed performance;
• performed incompletely; or
• performed defectively.

3. Performance remains possible

If performance has become impossible, the law moves toward compensation rather than physical performance.

4. The claimant has an enforceable interest

The claimant must establish the contractual or legal basis of the requested performance.

5. Applicable default requirements

Where required, the debtor must have been placed in default.

6. Proportionality

Under the new law, the court may consider whether specific performance would be disproportionately onerous compared with the creditor's interest.

5. Article 332 — Performance and Judicial Assistance

The provisions following Article 331 deal with the practical enforcement of obligations.

The basic objective is to ensure that a judicial order is capable of producing the performance to which the creditor is legally entitled.

Specific performance therefore concerns not merely declaring that a contract exists, but giving practical effect to the contractual obligation.

6. Article 333 — Compensation After Specific Performance or Continued Refusal

Article 333 provides that where specific performance has occurred, or the debtor continues refusing to perform, the court determines compensation taking into account:

• the damage suffered by the creditor; and
• the debtor's unjustified obstinacy. 

This is important because specific performance and compensation are not always mutually exclusive.

A creditor may obtain:

performance + compensation for resulting damage, where legally justified.

7. Article 335 — Obligation to Refrain From an Act

Specific performance is not limited to obligations to deliver something.

Where a person has an obligation not to do something and breaches that obligation, the creditor may seek removal of what has been done in violation of the obligation.

The court may authorize removal at the debtor's expense.

Example

A contractual party agrees not to construct beyond an agreed boundary.

It nevertheless constructs the prohibited structure.

The creditor may seek an order requiring the unlawful contractual violation to be removed, subject to the applicable legal requirements.

8. Article 336 — When Specific Performance Becomes Impossible

Article 336 provides that when specific performance becomes impossible, the debtor may instead be ordered to pay compensation, unless the debtor proves that the impossibility resulted from an external cause beyond the debtor's control.

The provision also deals with:

• delay;
• partial performance;
• defective performance. 

Therefore:

Possible performance

→ specific performance generally available.

Impossible performance

→ compensation generally becomes the substitute remedy.

9. Article 337 — Default

Article 337 generally requires the debtor to have been formally placed in default before compensation becomes due, unless:

• the law provides otherwise; or
• the contract provides otherwise. 

This makes notice/default an important procedural and substantive consideration in contractual remedies.

10. Specific Performance and Pacta Sunt Servanda

A central principle of UAE contract law is that a valid contract is binding on its parties.

The current Civil Transactions Law reinforces performance according to:

• contractual terms;
• good faith;
• law;
• custom where applicable;
• the nature of the obligation. 

Specific performance is therefore closely connected with the principle:

Agreements should be performed as agreed.

The remedy protects the creditor's expectation that the actual bargain will be performed.

11. Specific Performance vs Damages

These remedies should be distinguished.

Example

If a seller refuses to transfer a unique property:

Specific performance may be particularly important.

If the property has been destroyed:

Damages/compensation may become the appropriate remedy.

12. Specific Performance vs Termination

Specific performance seeks to preserve the contract.

Termination seeks to end the contractual relationship and obtain the consequences prescribed by law.

A claimant therefore needs to formulate the remedy carefully.

For example:

"I want the contract performed."

is conceptually different from:

"I want the contract terminated and compensation paid."

The court must examine the legal basis and circumstances before granting the requested relief.

13. Specific Performance and Impossibility

Impossibility is one of the most important limitations.

Suppose A agrees to deliver a particular machine to B.

Before delivery, the machine is destroyed by an event legally amounting to impossibility.

The court cannot realistically order A to deliver the destroyed machine.

The remedy may therefore shift from:

performance in kind

to:

compensation.

The new Article 336 expressly recognizes this transition.

14. Physical vs Legal Impossibility

Impossibility may be:

Physical

The promised thing no longer exists.

Legal

The law prevents the promised act from being performed.

Practical

Performance may technically be possible but may require circumstances that make actual performance legally or practically unavailable.

The court must examine the facts carefully before concluding that specific performance is impossible.

15. Proportionality Under the New Law

One of the important developments in the 2025 Civil Transactions Law is the express recognition of proportionality in specific performance.

The court may limit the creditor to monetary compensation where:

1. specific performance would be excessively burdensome for the debtor; and
2. substituting compensation would not cause substantial prejudice to the creditor. 

This creates a balance between:

creditor's right to actual performance

and

debtor's protection from disproportionate hardship.

16. Case Law 1 — Dubai Court of Cassation, Case No. 77 of 2011

Facts and principle

Dubai Court of Cassation Case No. 77 of 2011 concerned a construction contract and defective performance.

The court considered the statutory rules governing contracts of works.

Where defects can be remedied, the employer can require the contractor to comply with the contract and correct the defects within a reasonable period.

If the contractor fails to comply, remedies can include:

• termination; or
• authorization to have another contractor complete the work at the original contractor's expense,

subject to the applicable legal requirements.

Significance

This is a strong UAE authority for the proposition that contractual remedies can focus on actual correction of defective performance, rather than immediately converting every breach into a damages claim.

Rule

Where defective contractual performance remains capable of correction, the legal system can give priority to curing the defective performance.

17. Case Law 2 — Dubai Court of Cassation, Case No. 33 of 2019

Dubai Court of Cassation Case No. 33 of 2019 is relevant to the broader framework of civil liability.

The court emphasized that liability requires examination of:

1. breach or wrongful conduct;
2. damage; and
3. causation.

Relevance to specific performance

Specific performance does not eliminate the need to establish the underlying breach.

A claimant cannot simply demand performance without establishing:

• existence of the obligation;
• non-performance;
• legal entitlement to the requested remedy.

The case is therefore useful when explaining the foundation of contractual remedies.

18. Case Law 3 — Federal Supreme Court Civil Cassation No. 538 of 2016

This case concerns reciprocal contractual obligations.

The Federal Supreme Court examined the interconnected obligations of the parties and the circumstances in which one party could rely upon the other party's failure to perform.

Principle

In a bilateral contract, the court should not examine one party's performance in isolation.

It must consider:

• what A owed B;
• what B owed A;
• whether the obligations were reciprocal;
• whether one party's failure affected the other's performance.

Relevance

Specific performance should not ordinarily be ordered without examining whether the claimant has itself fulfilled the obligations that are legally connected with the requested performance.

This is especially important in:

• construction;
• property development;
• sale contracts;
• supply contracts;
• financing arrangements.

19. Case Law 4 — Federal Supreme Court Civil Cassation No. 826 of 2017

This case concerned a construction dispute involving questions of:

• contractual performance;
• specifications;
• delay;
• completion;
• expert evidence;
• responsibility for interruption.

The Federal Supreme Court recognized the importance of the trial court's assessment of technical and factual evidence concerning contractual performance where the reasoning is properly supported.

Significance

Specific performance frequently depends on technical questions.

For example:

Can defective construction actually be repaired?

Has the contractor completed 80% or 95% of the work?

Does the work comply with specifications?

These are often matters requiring expert evidence.

The court, rather than the expert, makes the ultimate legal decision.

20. Case Law 5 — Federal Supreme Court Civil Cassation No. 538/2017

UAE Federal Supreme Court jurisprudence concerning reciprocal contractual obligations also emphasizes that contractual performance must be examined according to the whole contractual relationship, rather than isolated obligations.

Significance

A claimant requesting specific performance must consider whether:

• it has performed its own obligations;
• it is ready and willing to perform;
• the other party's obligation has become due;
• reciprocal performance is legally connected.

Example

A buyer cannot necessarily demand delivery of goods while refusing to pay the contractually due price where payment and delivery are legally reciprocal obligations.

The precise result depends on the contract and applicable law.

21. Case Law 6 — Dubai Court of Cassation, Case No. 196 of 2002

Dubai Court of Cassation Case No. 196 of 2002 concerned obligations relating to property and the steps necessary to give effect to the parties' legal arrangement.

Relevance to specific performance

Property-related obligations are a classic field for performance in kind.

Where a seller has undertaken to complete the steps necessary to transfer or regularize a property interest, the claimant may seek enforcement of the actual obligation where the applicable law permits.

Importance

It demonstrates the distinction between:

"Pay me money because you failed"

and

"Complete the legal act that you promised to complete."

The second represents the central idea of specific performance.

22. Case Law 7 — VTJ Limited v Mohammed Ammar Al Hassan [2018] DIFC CA 009

This is a DIFC Court of Appeal authority and therefore should not be confused with an onshore UAE Court of Cassation decision.

The case concerned the sale of real property in the DIFC.

The DIFC Court of Appeal recognized specific performance as an appropriate remedy for the relevant property transaction.

Importance

It illustrates the significance of specific performance in property transactions where the subject matter is sufficiently specific and monetary damages may not provide an equivalent substitute.

Important distinction

The DIFC applies its own common-law-based legal framework.

Therefore:

VTJ is a UAE/DIFC authority, but it is not an onshore UAE Civil Transactions Law precedent.

23. Case Law 8 — BAM Higgs & Hill LLC v Affan Innovative Structures LLC [2021] DIFC CFI 106

This DIFC Court of First Instance case involved a construction dispute.

The court considered UAE Civil Code provisions concerning:

• performance;
• defective work;
• specific performance;
• compensation;
• impossibility.

The judgment specifically discussed former Civil Code Articles 385 and 386 and Dubai Court of Cassation Case No. 77 of 2011.

Significance

The case is useful because it demonstrates the interaction between:

UAE statutory civil-law principles

and

DIFC adjudication of a commercial construction dispute.

It also demonstrates how specific performance, correction of defective work and damages can operate as interconnected remedies.

24. Case Law 9 — Al Khaleej Investment PSC v Ocean Pearl Real Estate Comp LLC

ADGM Court of First Instance, 2025

This is an ADGM authority and must similarly be distinguished from an onshore UAE case.

The dispute concerned a sale and purchase agreement for land on Al Reem Island valued at approximately AED 105 million.

The claimant sought specific performance.

The ADGM Court considered the applicable legal framework and the equitable nature of specific performance under the ADGM's common-law system.

The later judgment ordered specific performance in relation to the land transaction, requiring the seller to take the necessary steps to complete the sale.

Importance

This is an important modern UAE example of specific performance in a property transaction.

However:

ADGM law should not be automatically equated with mainland UAE Civil Transactions Law.

25. Specific Performance in Construction Contracts

Construction is one of the most important areas.

Suppose:

• contractor builds defective structure;
• employer demands correction;
• contractor refuses.

The employer may seek:

1. correction;
2. completion;
3. substituted performance where legally permitted;
4. termination;
5. compensation.

Dubai Cassation Case No. 77 of 2011 illustrates this remedial structure.

The current Civil Transactions Law has also updated the muqawala framework dealing with contracts of works and construction.

26. Specific Performance in Sale of Property

Real property is particularly suitable for specific performance because a particular property can be difficult to replace with money.

For example:

A agrees to sell:

Plot X, Building Y, Unit Z.

The seller later refuses to complete the transaction.

The buyer may seek an order requiring completion, subject to:

• validity of the contract;
• applicable property-registration rules;
• payment obligations;
• legal possibility of transfer;
• relevant jurisdiction.

The modern ADGM case of Al Khaleej v Ocean Pearl illustrates this principle in the ADGM context.

27. Specific Performance in Sale of Movable Property

Specific performance can also concern movable property.

For example:

• a unique machine;
• a rare piece of equipment;
• an identified industrial asset;
• a particular vehicle;
• a specified piece of artwork.

If the object is readily replaceable in the market, monetary compensation may often be more practical.

If the object is unique or difficult to replace, actual delivery becomes more significant.

28. Specific Performance of Personal Services

An obligation involving personal skill or personal trust creates additional difficulty.

For example:

A famous consultant agrees to personally provide a specialized service.

A court may be reluctant to compel continuing personal performance where doing so would effectively require ongoing supervision of an individual's personal labor.

This is one reason the nature of the obligation matters.

Specific performance is much easier to formulate for:

"Transfer this property"

than for:

"Work for me for the next five years."

29. Obligations to Do Something

Where a contract requires an act, the court may consider whether the act:

• can be performed by another person;
• requires personal performance;
• is technically feasible;
• is sufficiently precise.

Example

A contractor agrees to repair a building.

If the contractor refuses, another contractor may potentially perform the work, with the original contractor bearing legally recoverable costs where the law permits.

This is different from an obligation that depends uniquely on the personal skill or confidence of the original debtor.

30. Obligations Not to Do Something

Specific performance can also operate negatively.

Suppose a party agrees:

"I will not disclose confidential information."

If the party threatens to disclose it, the creditor may seek appropriate judicial relief preventing the prohibited conduct, subject to the applicable procedural and substantive requirements.

The current Civil Transactions Law specifically addresses obligations to refrain from acts and the removal of violations.

31. Specific Performance and Good Faith

Good faith is fundamental to UAE contractual performance.

The new Civil Transactions Law states that contractual performance must comply with:

• the contract;
• good faith;
• law;
• custom;
• the nature of the obligation. 

Therefore, a party should not deliberately frustrate performance and then argue that technical compliance with one isolated clause defeats the creditor's claim.

Good faith helps the court understand:

• what performance was actually expected;
• whether a breach occurred;
• whether the claimant acted consistently with the contract;
• whether the requested remedy is appropriate.

32. Specific Performance and Default Notice

A claimant should carefully examine whether the debtor has been placed in default.

The new Article 337 generally makes formal default relevant before compensation becomes due, subject to statutory and contractual exceptions.

In practice, a demand may:

• identify the breach;
• require performance;
• establish a reasonable deadline;
• preserve contractual rights;
• establish evidence of refusal.

A properly drafted notice can therefore be extremely important in a specific-performance dispute.

33. Specific Performance and Penalty Clauses

A contract may contain a predetermined compensation clause.

However, the existence of such a clause does not necessarily eliminate the possibility of seeking actual performance.

The court must examine:

• wording of the clause;
• nature of breach;
• whether performance remains possible;
• applicable statutory provisions;
• whether compensation is intended as an alternative or additional remedy.

Specific performance and agreed compensation can therefore require separate analysis.

34. Specific Performance and Force Majeure

Specific performance cannot ordinarily require performance that has become legally impossible due to a qualifying external event.

Examples might include:

• destruction of the subject matter;
• legal prohibition;
• events making performance objectively impossible.

The current Civil Transactions Law provides a statutory framework for impossibility and compensation.

However, difficulty is not necessarily impossibility.

A debtor cannot automatically avoid specific performance merely because performance has become more expensive or inconvenient.

The court must examine the applicable statutory rules concerning force majeure and exceptional circumstances.

35. Specific Performance and Hardship

Hardship creates a different problem.

Performance may remain technically possible but become extremely burdensome.

The new law's proportionality mechanism is important here.

The court may consider whether compelling actual performance would impose an excessive burden on the debtor compared with the creditor's interest, while also considering whether monetary compensation would cause substantial prejudice to the creditor.

Thus:

Impossible performance → compensation

whereas:

Possible but excessively burdensome performance → proportionality analysis.

36. Specific Performance and Proportionality

The new statutory approach can be expressed as:

Performance is preferred, but the remedy must remain proportionate.

For example:

A contractor's minor technical deviation may not justify an order requiring demolition and complete reconstruction where monetary compensation or reasonable correction adequately protects the creditor.

Conversely, if the deviation substantially defeats the contractual purpose, actual correction may remain appropriate.

37. Specific Performance and Court Discretion

Specific performance under the mainland UAE system should not be confused with the discretionary equitable remedy developed historically by English courts.

The UAE system derives the remedy primarily from codified civil-law rules.

The court therefore applies statutory requirements.

The new law nevertheless introduces a specific proportionality discretion in Article 331(2).

This produces a combination of:

statutory entitlement + judicial evaluation of proportionality.

38. Specific Performance and Evidence

The claimant must prove the contractual obligation.

Evidence can include:

• written contract;
• electronic contract;
• correspondence;
• invoices;
• delivery records;
• expert reports;
• photographs;
• electronic communications;
• payment records;
• admissions.

In construction disputes, expert evidence may be especially important, as illustrated by Federal Supreme Court Civil Cassation No. 826 of 2017.

39. Specific Performance and Digital Contracts

The growth of electronic contracting does not fundamentally change the conceptual remedy.

If an electronic contract creates a legally enforceable obligation, the claimant may seek the legally available remedies for breach.

Examples include:

• electronic sale agreements;
• digitally executed development contracts;
• smart-contract arrangements;
• electronic supply agreements.

The court must first establish the validity, authenticity and legal effect of the electronic agreement.

40. Specific Performance and Smart Contracts

Smart contracts present an interesting modern problem.

Suppose:

A smart contract automatically transfers a digital asset when condition X occurs.

If one party alleges that the automated execution was incorrect, a court may need to determine:

• what the underlying legal contract requires;
• whether the code accurately reflected the parties' agreement;
• whether a coding error occurred;
• whether performance can be reversed;
• whether specific performance or restitution is appropriate.

The legal obligation remains distinct from the technological mechanism used to perform it.

41. Specific Performance and Third Parties

Specific performance generally concerns the parties to the relevant obligation.

A court should not normally compel a stranger to the contract to perform a contractual obligation merely because the third party possesses the relevant asset.

Questions of:

• assignment;
• agency;
• third-party rights;
• property rights;
• registration;

may therefore become important.

42. Specific Performance and Registration

Property transactions often involve two separate concepts:

Contractual obligation

The seller promises to transfer the property.

Registration

The transfer may require compliance with the applicable property-registration system.

A judgment requiring contractual performance does not necessarily eliminate mandatory registration procedures.

The court's order and the registration authority's statutory requirements must therefore operate together.

43. Specific Performance and Arbitration

An arbitral tribunal may award specific performance where:

• the applicable law permits it;
• the arbitration agreement covers the dispute;
• the requested remedy falls within the tribunal's authority.

The tribunal may need to consider:

• feasibility;
• jurisdiction;
• proportionality;
• contractual terms;
• mandatory law;
• enforceability of the resulting award.

This is particularly important in UAE construction, infrastructure and real-estate arbitration.

44. Specific Performance and Public Policy

A court will not normally order performance that requires violation of mandatory law or public policy.

For example, a court cannot legitimately order a party to perform an act that is itself prohibited by UAE law.

Thus:

Contractual obligation

↓

Specific-performance request

↓

Legality check

↓

Possibility/proportionality

↓

Judicial order

45. Practical Test for UAE Specific Performance

A useful examination formula is:

P — Promise

What obligation did the contract create?

B — Breach

Has the obligation been breached?

D — Default

Has the debtor been properly placed in default where required?

F — Feasibility

Is actual performance still possible?

R — Reciprocity

Has the claimant performed its own connected obligations?

P — Proportionality

Would specific performance be excessively burdensome?

D — Damage

Has the claimant suffered additional compensable loss?

E — Enforcement

Can the court's order practically be enforced?

46. Specific Performance vs Compensation — Simple Example

Suppose A agrees to sell a particular villa to B for AED 5 million.

B pays the required amount.

A refuses to complete the sale.

Situation 1

Villa still exists and transfer remains legally possible.

Specific performance may be sought.

Situation 2

Villa is destroyed by a legally recognized external event.

Specific performance may be impossible.

Compensation becomes relevant.

Situation 3

Performance is possible but extraordinarily burdensome.

The court may consider the new Article 331(2) proportionality test.

47. Specific Performance in Construction — Example

A contractor agrees to build a commercial building according to specified plans.

The contractor constructs defective foundations.

The employer demands correction.

Possible legal sequence

Defect identified

↓

Notice to contractor

↓

Reasonable opportunity to correct

↓

Specific performance/rectification

↓

If contractor refuses:

substituted completion or termination + compensation, depending on the applicable law and facts.

Dubai Cassation Case No. 77 of 2011 illustrates this approach.

48. Major Limitations

Specific performance may be inappropriate where:

1. performance is impossible;
2. performance would violate law;
3. the obligation is excessively burdensome under the new proportionality rule;
4. the obligation requires inappropriate personal supervision;
5. the claimant has failed to perform a reciprocal obligation;
6. the contract is invalid or unenforceable;
7. the requested order is too uncertain or incapable of enforcement;
8. the relevant property or right cannot legally be transferred;
9. a special statute provides a different remedial regime.

49. Important Distinction: Mainland UAE, DIFC and ADGM

This distinction is essential.

Mainland UAE

Specific performance is governed principally by the Civil Transactions Law, including the new 2025 legislation.

DIFC

The DIFC has a distinct common-law-based system. Specific performance is influenced by equitable principles.

ADGM

ADGM similarly operates an English common-law-based legal framework.

Therefore, cases such as:

• VTJ v Al Hassan
• BAM Higgs & Hill
• Al Khaleej v Ocean Pearl

should be clearly identified as DIFC/ADGM authorities, rather than presented as direct precedents under the mainland Civil Transactions Law.

50. Comparison of Important Cases

51. Key Legal Principles

Principle 1

Specific performance is an important primary remedy for contractual breach.

Principle 2

Actual performance is preferred where legally and practically possible.

Principle 3

Impossibility can convert the remedy into compensation.

Principle 4

The new Civil Transactions Law introduces proportionality into the specific-performance analysis.

Principle 5

A claimant must consider its own reciprocal obligations.

Principle 6

Good faith influences contractual performance.

Principle 7

Defective performance can sometimes be corrected rather than immediately terminated.

Principle 8

Specific performance and compensation can coexist in appropriate circumstances.

Principle 9

Property transactions are particularly important applications of specific performance.

Principle 10

DIFC and ADGM specific-performance jurisprudence must be distinguished from mainland UAE civil law.

52. Conclusion

The specific performance concept in UAE civil law reflects the civil-law preference for requiring a debtor to perform the obligation actually undertaken rather than automatically converting every breach into a monetary claim.

The current Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025 preserves specific performance as the principal remedy while introducing an express proportionality mechanism. Articles 331–337 create a modern remedial framework dealing with actual performance, continued refusal, obligations to refrain from acts, impossibility, delay, defective performance and default.

The case law demonstrates the practical operation of the doctrine:

• Dubai Cassation No. 77/2011 illustrates correction and performance in construction disputes.
• Federal Supreme Court No. 538/2016 illustrates the importance of reciprocal contractual obligations.
• Federal Supreme Court No. 826/2017 demonstrates the role of technical evidence in determining contractual performance.
• Dubai Cassation No. 196/2002 illustrates the importance of actual performance in property-related obligations.
• VTJ v Al Hassan demonstrates specific performance in a DIFC property dispute.
• BAM Higgs & Hill illustrates the interaction of construction performance, specific performance and compensation.
• Al Khaleej v Ocean Pearl provides a recent ADGM example involving specific performance of a substantial land-sale agreement. 

The essential examination rule is:

Under UAE civil law, where a valid contractual obligation has been breached and actual performance remains possible, the creditor may seek specific performance; however, the court must consider impossibility, reciprocal obligations, default, applicable mandatory rules and, under the current 2025 Civil Transactions Law, proportionality between the burden on the debtor and the creditor's interest.

Short Revision Formula

Valid contract → breach → default where required → performance possible → specific performance → proportionality → compensation for additional loss → compensation as substitute where performance is impossible.