What is the test for an employer to enforce an obligation to render personal service or to employ another in personal service?

Under California law, an obligation to render personal service or to employ another in personal service cannot be specifically enforced. Cal. Civ. Code 3390(1). This "rule evolved because of the inherent difficulties courts would encounter in supervising the performance of uniquely personal efforts." Barndt v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 211 Cal. App. 3d 397, 403 (1989). An order requiring personal service would impose upon the issuing court the job of supervising that service and judging its qualityan arduous task. See id. Moreover, "the common law disfavored specific performance to avoid the friction and social costs that often result when employer and employee are reunited in a relationship that has already failed . . . . This rationale is particularly applicable where the services to be rendered require mutual confidence among the parties and involve the exercise of discretionary authority. Id. at 404. In this way, section 3390(1) is the statutory analogue

Page 10

to the common-law rule that courts should not order specific performance "where the contracts stipulate a succession of continuous acts which require protracted supervision and direction by the court with the exercise of special knowledge, skill, and judgment by the parties performing the acts." See Ellison v. Ventura Port District, 80 Cal. App. 3d 574, 580 (1978).