Cooperative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd [1998] 1 AC 1

There was a Safeway open in a super market
It was under a 14 year lease where one of the terms of the contract was to keep it open for certain hours
Safeway decided to close that supermarket because it was underperforming (operating at a loss)
The owner of the premises sued to force them to stay

Hoffman, Hope & Clyde LJ: Generally, Courts will not force businesses to keep trading
Specific performance is an exceptional, discretionary remedy
The most frequent reason for not forcing businesses to keep trading is that it would require too much supervision
The supervision rule means that they do not want to have to keep making decisions about the contract
To force them to perform is to hover the sword of Damocles over their heads. This is no way to run a business.
Also contempt of court may be too heavy a punishment
There is a distinction between orders to achieve a result (e.g. fix the house) and continue something (e.g. run a shop)
Specific performance requires precision in terms of what they want
Forcing someone to carry on a business may cause unjust enrichment to the other
Specific performance can yoke together two parties who do not get along at all. This is wasteful for the Courts
The cumulative effect of these makes it sensible that specific performance shouldn’t be enforced to make businesses continue
However in further cases you must consider the ethics