ABSTRACT
When one turns from the law of actions in civil law to remedies in the common law, one of the great differences often said to exist is that the former is more concerned with the specific performance of contracts while the latter sees such a remedy as exceptional.1 The general common law principle in respect of the law of remedies is omnis condemnatio pecuniaria.2 However, while there is no doubt some truth in this difference of approach, care must be taken since the omnis condemnatio principle is Roman in origin and in actual practice the distinction between specific performance and certain monetary claims is by no means clear-cut. When a seller of goods claims in debt for the price of goods sold, is he claiming a monetary remedy or specific performance of the contract? This question can be important for the common lawyer since the distinctions between actions for monetary compensation, actions for an agreed price and actions for specific performance in equity are, institutionally speaking, quite separate kinds of claim.3 Thus, while it is sometimes convenient to see civil liability claims primarily in terms of monetary actions, such an approach can also eclipse the operation of more structural ideas. English law sometimes expresses fundamental liability ideas through remedial differences and so before embarking on an analysis of the English law of obligations it might be helpful first to examine in some depth the English law of actions. For it must never be forgotten that the structure of English law owes much to the forms of action and, more generally, that actions are, in the legal plan, institutions.4
