Legal processes

Specific performance is indeed a type of legal process that a certain party decide to take when another party violates a given contractual agreement. Moreover, if the real value of damages caused to the other party cannot be assessed or the contract agreement was unique, a specific performance action must be taken (Miller & Roger n.d). Indeed, in this case, the American Kennel Club violate the agreement to give Validay the screen credit for the film, and there is no indeed a given amount of money that can compensate for this action and therefore Validay should be entitled to a specific performance.
On the other hand, the AKC would claim that Validay was not entitled to the specific performance in addition to damages by arguing that the damages suffered by Validay can be compensated through offering a certain amount of money to them. They can also argue that fulfilling the contract would cause major problems to their company and also that the contract was unreasonable. The American Kennel Club would also argue that the contract was terminable at will by any party, and therefore they decided to terminate it.
The Validay side argument is most convincing than the AKC argument. One of the reason is that the AKC decided to breach a unique contract agreement of giving Validay a screen credit statement. This kind of contract is indeed hard to compensate for any amount of money, and they indeed have to fulfill it. Also, some argument by the AKC such as that of terminating the contract is indeed not applicable especial when consumer protection rights are involved
The delegation would mean that either party had the power or authority to transfer a certain responsibility in the given contract.

On the other hand, assignment means that either party had the power to transfer all the contract license and duties to another third party. This means that the third party would receive all the payments for the conduction of the contract.
If Validay decided to assign its contract to another filmmaker, then this means that it had indeed terminated its contract with AKC fully and it was not liable for any damages that happened ever. Specific performance could not be awarded to Validay since they were not in contract with AKC anymore. With Validay assigning the contract to another party it means that there wasn’t any existence of a contract and therefore it would not be entitled to any specific performance in addition to damages.
If Validay also decided to delegate its contract to another filmmaker specific performance in addition to damages would still be awarded. This is because Validay had only passed some part of the responsibility to another, but it still held the contract between both parties. Validay should indeed be compensated for damages caused by violation of the contract by the other party which is AKC in this case ( Wright & Paul n.d). Indeed, Validay part would be most convincing in this case, and it would be compensated for damages caused by AKC.
If AKC decided to delegate its contract to Dog Fancy Magazine, then it means that AKC had just passed some of its responsibility to Dog Fancy Magazine, but it still held the contract with Validay. Therefore Validay would still claim its specific performance in addition to damages. However, if AKC assigned the contract to another party, then it means that they were not in contract anymore and Validay was not entitled to a specific performance from AKC anymore. As a judge or observer, i feel the best resolution is for both parties to first come into a common agreement before delegating or assigning the contract to another party.

Works cited
Miller, Roger LeRoy. Business Law Today, Comprehensive. Cengage learning, 2016.
Wright, Paul J. “Challenges to the Harmonisation of Business Law: Domestic and Cross-Border Insolvency Law.” Browser Download This Paper (2015).