this Agreement, [Star Broadcasting] and [Hale] each agrees to waive the defense that [Qantum] has an adequate remedy at law and to interpose no opposition, legal or otherwise, as to the propriety of specific performance as a remedy. (D.E. No. 118, Exh. 2 at 32-33). This Court agrees with Plaintiffs observation that it is well-settled that parties are free to choose their own remedies in a contract and that courts can enforce such remedies. See, e.g., Media Gen. Broad., Inc. v. Pappas Telecasting, 152 F.Supp.2d 865, 869 (W-D.N.C.2001) (enforcing plain language of parties’ contract and ordering specific performance because “parties [are] free to shape their remedies according to their particular needs[.]”); Ocean Dunes Devel. Corp. v. Colangelo, 463 So.2d 437, 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (<HOLDING>) (citing Jay Vee Realty Corp. v. Jaymar Acres,
holding that statute of limitations is tolled by pursuit of internal union remedies even where those remedies are ultimately determined to be futile holding that the remedies are exclusive holding that tjhere is no question that parties to a contract may agree to limit their respective remedies and that those remedies need not be the same if the contract provision is reasonable holding that if adequate administrative remedies are available it is improper to seek relief in court before those remedies are exhausted holding that dc circuit has no jurisdiction to determine remedies under standard contract