The legal issue raised in this question is to discuss the available remedies to Adam as a result of the breach of contract by Edwin to sell the Rolls Royce at an agreed price of $500,000 and subsequently refusing to sell as Edwin heard there was an Arabian sheik on the lookout for rolls Royce and willing to pay $700,000. The general principle of law applicable to this issue is that the Rolls Royce is a unique product, which is considered as an equitable remedy by using specific performance and injunction. It’s an order by the court to one party to do something specific.
For instance, If Joey has spent all her life searching an ideal house, which she finally found when Harry offered his house for sales. If Harry backs out of the agreement, Joey will not be satisfied with damages because it is the house she wants. In this case, the court will order specific performance requiring Harry to sell the house to Joey. The above principle of law was clearly established in the case of total quality management of samsung (1805) 10 Ves 159, N had contracted to buy machinery from T, a type that was unique and not readily available elsewhere.
Subsequently T refused to sell the machinery, the court granted a specific performance and forced T to sell the machinery. The principle of law in the case of Lumley v Wagner  EWHC (CH) J96, W agreed to sing at L’s theatre and no where else, a short while after the contract was made, W wanted to sing for Z. The court held that W could be restrained by injunction from singing for Z. Similar to the case of Adam and Edwin entering into a contract for the purchase of car, subsequently Edwin wanted to sell the car to an Arabian Sheik who is willing to pay $200,000 more.
Using the principle of this case to the current situation, Adam suffered a loss where by the Rolls Royce is a vintage car which is a unique product, by using specific performance Adam can appeal for orders to force Edwin to sell Adam the unique car as stated in their contract. Injunction could be used to remedy Edwin’s breach of contract by restraining the Arabian Sheik from purchasing the vintage car. However, if the Arabian Sheik fails to obey to the injunction, he would face criminal or civil penalties and may have to compensate damages or accept sanctions for failure of following the court’s order.
However, as a counter argument, In the case of Redgrave v Hurd (1881) 20 Ch D 1, Edwin refused to sign the contract because he may be hesitating when he heard that an Arabian Sheik was on the look out for the rare car and is willing to pay $700,000. This may cause Edwin to have innocent misrepresentation which leads him to made the false statement believing that there was an Arabian Sheik who is willing to pay $200,00 more.