X University, having lost the league championships to Y University for past three years, discharged its head basketball coach and entered into negotiations with Smith, a basketball coach of national reputation. In the course of these negotiations, authorized representatives of the University assured Smith that a minimum sum of $10,000 would be available for basketball scholarships during his first year as coach. On January 7, Smith and the University entered into a written contract under which Smith promised to serve as coach for one year beginning September 1, and the University promised to pay Smith a salary of $14,500. No reference was made in the contract to the question of basketball scholarships.
On April 2, Smith learned that less than $1,000 would be available for basketball scholarships during the coming school year. He brought an action to cancel the contract on the grounds of fraud. The trial court refused to cancel the contract, and the decision was affirmed on appeal.
Following that decision the head coach at Y University died. Smith informed X University that he would not fulfill his obligations under the contract, and he sought employment as coach at Y University. Before Smith signed a contract with Y University, X University filed an action seeking (1) specific performance of Smith’s contract with X University and (2) an injunction preventing Smith from serving as basketball coach at any other college or university.
What relief, if any, should be granted to X university?