Here are four past cases Twitter and Elon Musk’s lawyers will be examining as they head to court

SpaceX founder Elon Musk reacts at a post-launch news conference after the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, carrying the Crew Dragon spacecraft, lifted off on an uncrewed test flight to the International Space Station from the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida, U.S., March 2, 2019. 

When one party tries to back out of a deal, a contract provision is often needed.

In real estate cases, specific performance is used to prevent buyers and sellers from calling off deals. It is included in corporate merger agreements as a way of forcing either buyer or seller to close on a deal.

Three arguments were made by Musk's lawyers in regards to why the company broke its contract. They claim that the company has overstated the number of fake accounts it has reported. To end the deal, Musk would have to show that the number of so-called bots is much higher and that it has a negative effect on the company.

Second, according to Musk's lawyers, Twitter failed to provide much of the data and information Musk requested, breaching a contract term that requires reasonable access to the company and its subsidiaries.

According to Musk's lawyers, the company didn't comply with another contract term that required consent before deviating from its normal course of business. The decision to fire two high ranking employees, laying off a third of its talent acquisition team and instituting a general hiring freeze are all examples of decisions made without Musk's input.

A number of cases where a company cited the specific performance clause to force a sale have been ruled on by the Delaware Court of Chancery. The details of Musk's deal differ as well.

Context can be provided by past cases for the Musk-Twitter dispute.

After winning a bidding war, Tyson agreed to acquire IBP for $3.2 billion. Tyson tried to get out of the deal when his businesses were hurt by it. There were financial problems that Tyson claimed were hidden.

Tyson simply had "buyer's regret", according to Judge Strine. The judge found that calling off a deal was not justified.

The exterior of a Tyson Fresh Meats plant is seen on May 1, 2020 in Wallula, Washington. Over 150 workers at the plant have tested positive for COVID-19, according to local health officials.

The contract had a specific performance clause.

Strine wrote that specific performance is the only way to adequately remedy the harm that Tyson has caused.

Tyson has owned IBP for more than two decades.

There are a few differences between the Tyson deal and others. Tyson was hoping that a judge would allow it to walk away from the deal because of the decline in business after the agreement was signed. Musk is arguing that he should be able to walk.

Billions of dollars in external financing are involved in Musk's acquisition ofTwitter. It is not clear how a decision in favor of the company will affect funding or closing.

Strine works for Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, the firm that was hired to argue the case for Twitter.

A South Korean financial services company agreed to purchase 15 U.S. hotels from a Chinese company for $5.8 billion. The deal was signed in the fall of 2019.

The buyer said the Covid-19 shutdowns caused a material adverse effect. The seller had a lawsuit filed.

The buyer could get out of the deal if the hotel shutdowns and capacity reductions were found to be in violation of the normal course of business.

In 2021, the Delaware Supreme Court upheld the decision.

Tiffany was initially agreed to be bought by LVMH for $16.2 billion. The deal was supposed to close in November, but was pushed back to September 2020 due to the Pandemic. Tiffany filed a lawsuit for specific performance.

The judge never issued a ruling because the two sides agreed to a lower price to account for the drop in demand. In October 2020, the company agreed to buy Tiffany. In January of 2021, the deal closed.

A Tiffany & Co. store front in Mid-Town, New York.

Finish Line initially agreed to buy Genesco for 1.5 billion dollars in June 2007, with a closing date of December 31, 2007. Finish Line tried to end the deal in September 2007, accusing Genesco of securities fraud and inducing them to enter into the deal.

The Delaware Chancery Court ruled that Genesco had met its obligations and that Finish Line had buyer's remorse. During the beginning of the housing and financial crisis, markets crashed.

Both sides agreed to end the deal because Finish Line would pay Genesco damages. Finish Line agreed to pay Genesco $175 million in March of 2008 as the credit market cratered.

Genesco is an independently traded stock. The Finish Line will be bought byJD Sports Fashion.

There is a possibility that Elon Musk will head to court.