When the court decides there has been a breach, there are many remedies at its disposal.
One solution is to require specific performance. As such, a breaching party is required to fulfil the contract as written.
For example: Person A has a written contract to sell a piece of real property to person B. A may then turn around and sell the house to C. The law requires that the house go to B.
A major reason for specific performance is that courts do not have to spend time estimating damages to B. Such a contract can easily be determined within a smart contract.
The reason for such a thing is that damage determination can be difficult, and the court would have to determine how much B valued the house at and subtract the price of the house to calculate B’s loss.
As value is subjective, it may not be easy to calculate; B has a reason to exaggerate, and then objective evidence may be refuted or not support such claims.
In other cases, specific performance is not easy to achieve. In such a case, bargaining of power amongst the various parties can create scenarios leading to different damage remedies.
Sometimes, such a scenario may even lead to zero damages; consequently, any smart contract that is not purely based on specific performance as detailed within a contract could easily be overturned or subject to legal review.