Claimant would buy all its petrol from the defendant who agreed to supply all the claimant’s needs. The defendants purported to terminate the contract at a time when supplies were limited and an interim injunction was granted to restrain the withholding of supplies. The judge accepted that this amounted to specific performance of a contract to sell chattels although they were not specific or ascertained. Nonetheless, his decision was based on the inadequacy of damages as a remedy, as an injunction was the sole means of keeping the claimant’s business going. I.e. a “grave threat to business” is an alternative for the adequacy requirements mentioned above.