S.D. Codified Laws » S.D. Codified Laws / Title 21 / Chapter 9
South Dakota Codified Laws

S.D. Codified Laws § 21-9-2 (2026)

Obligations and agreements not specifically enforceable.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section SD-LEGsdlegislature.gov JustiaS.D. Codified Laws CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

21-9-2. Obligations and agreements not specifically enforceable.

The following obligations cannot be specifically enforced:

(1)    An obligation to render personal service;

(2)    An obligation to employ another in personal service;

(3)    An agreement to submit a controversy to arbitration except as authorized in the Uniform Arbitration Act;

(4)    An agreement to perform an act which the party has not power lawfully to perform when required to do so;

(5)    An agreement to procure the act or consent of the spouse of the contracting party, or of any other third person;

(6)    An agreement, the terms of which are not sufficiently certain, to make the precise act which is to be done clearly ascertainable.

Source: CivC 1877, § 1999; CL 1887, § 4632; RCivC 1903, § 2344; RC 1919, § 2015; SDC 1939 & Supp 1960, § 37.4602; SL 1971, ch 157, § 26; SL 1979, ch 149, § 11.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1974–1992 · leading case: Wiggins v. Shewmake, 374 N.W.2d 111 (S.D. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wiggins v. Shewmake, 374 N.W.2d 111 (S.D. 1985). · cites it 2× “SDCL 21-9-2 provides: The following obligations cannot be specifically enforced: (6) An agreement, the terms of which are not sufficiently certain, to make the precise act which is to be done clearly ascertainable.”
Rusch v. Kauker, 479 N.W.2d 496 (S.D. 1991). · cites it 2× “*505 SDCL 21-9-2 provides: "The following obligations cannot be specifically enforced: (6) An agreement, the terms of which are not sufficiently certain, to make the precise act which is to be done clearly ascertainable.”
Jager v. Ramona Bd. of Educ., Ramona Sch. Dist., 444 N.W.2d 21 (S.D. 1989). · cites it 2× “The gravamen of Board’s complaint is that reinstatement of Jager is an order for specific performance of a personal services contract, prohibited by SDCL 21-9-2. 2 The linchpin of this argument is that breach of contract has occurred.”
Amdahl v. Lowe, 471 N.W.2d 770 (S.D. 1991). · cites it 2× “SDCL 21-9-2(6). On the essential terms of the contract, there was no meeting of the minds.”
Centrol, Inc. v. Morrow, 489 N.W.2d 890 (S.D. 1992). · cites it 2× “Under SDCL 21-9-2(1), obligations "to render personal service" will not be specifically enforced.”
Reid v. Huron Bd. of Educ., 449 N.W.2d 240 (S.D. 1989). · cites it 2× “Board argues that reinstatement of Reid is an order for specific performance of a personal services contract, prohibited by SDCL 21-9-2. We specifically answered Board's objections to reinstatement being a proper remedy in Jager v.”
Stugelmayer v. Ulmer, 260 N.W.2d 236 (S.D. 1977). “SDCL 21-9-2 states that “the following obligations cannot be specifically enforced: * * $ ⅜ ⅜: (4) An agreement to perform an act which the party has not power lawfully to perform when required to do so; (5) An agreement to procure the act or consent of the wife of the…”
Brookings Mall, Inc. v. Cpt. Ahab's, Ltd., 300 N.W.2d 259 (S.D. 1980). “Regarding appellant's theory that SDCL 21-9-2(6), SDCL 21-9-3(2), and SDCL 21-9-4 preclude specific performance under this lease, we remind appellant that this action was not founded in specific performance.”
Habeck v. Sampson, 221 N.W.2d 483 (S.D. 1974). “The testimony that defendant Harold Sampson agreed to sell plaintiffs the two lots, that he drew a sketch of the two lots which showed their location in relationship to the property being purchased by plaintiffs, and that he told plaintiff the size of the lots established the…”
S.D. Codified Laws § 21-9-2(1): 1 case
Centrol, Inc. v. Morrow, 489 N.W.2d 890 (S.D. 1992). “Under SDCL 21-9-2(1), obligations "to render personal service" will not be specifically enforced.”
S.D. Codified Laws § 21-9-2(6): 4 cases
Amdahl v. Lowe, 471 N.W.2d 770 (S.D. 1991). “SDCL 21-9-2(6). On the essential terms of the contract, there was no meeting of the minds.”
Wiggins v. Shewmake, 374 N.W.2d 111 (S.D. 1985). “SDCL 21-9-2 provides: The following obligations cannot be specifically enforced: (6) An agreement, the terms of which are not sufficiently certain, to make the precise act which is to be done clearly ascertainable.”
Brookings Mall, Inc. v. Cpt. Ahab's, Ltd., 300 N.W.2d 259 (S.D. 1980). “Regarding appellant's theory that SDCL 21-9-2(6), SDCL 21-9-3(2), and SDCL 21-9-4 preclude specific performance under this lease, we remind appellant that this action was not founded in specific performance.”
Habeck v. Sampson, 221 N.W.2d 483 (S.D. 1974). “The testimony that defendant Harold Sampson agreed to sell plaintiffs the two lots, that he drew a sketch of the two lots which showed their location in relationship to the property being purchased by plaintiffs, and that he told plaintiff the size of the lots established the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.