Impossibility of Performance in Modern Contractual Obligations

In modern contractual obligations, impossibility of performance can arise due to unforeseen circumstances, such as a natural disaster or a change in government regulations.

This can render a contract unenforceable, as seen in the example of a contract between a farmer and a supplier of seeds, where a severe drought made it impossible for the farmer to fulfill their obligations.

A contract may also be deemed impossible to perform if it involves a prohibited activity, like a contract between a company and a supplier of goods that are subject to an embargo.

This highlights the importance of carefully reviewing contracts and considering potential risks and challenges that may arise.

See what others are reading: Is Interest on Us Savings Bonds and Treasury Obligations Taxable

The impossibility of performance is a crucial defense to contract breach, and it's essential to understand when it can be used. If a party to a contract claims that performance is impossible, the court will consider whether the impossibility is due to circumstances beyond the party's control, such as a hurricane or a natural disaster.

For example, if a homeowner hires a contractor to remodel their backyard, but a hurricane occurs, the contractor cannot be held liable for not performing. The court will terminate the contract, and future performance will be excused.

However, if the impossibility is foreseeable or predictable, the defense will not be allowed. If John's dog was sick when he and Sue entered into a contract, and Sue knew about the dog's condition, then it's not a valid defense if the dog passes away before performance begins.

The impossibility defense also won't work if the occurrence isn't severe enough. If the cost of performance increases by a small amount, the contract will still be enforceable. This is similar to business transactions where prices fluctuate due to changes in material costs.

Here are some examples of impossibility of performance:

Impracticability is a concept closely related to impossibility of performance. According to the Delaware courts, a party may be excused from a contractual breach by supervening impracticability under certain circumstances.

To invoke the defense of impracticability, a party must show that the non-occurrence of a basic assumption on which the contract was made has caused performance to become impracticable. This can be due to extreme and unreasonable difficulty, expense, injury, or loss to one of the parties involved.

The Delaware legislature has adopted the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) under 6 Del. C. § 2-615(a), which applies only to the sale of goods. However, parties invoking the defense under services contracts must rely on Delaware common law.

To establish impracticability, a party must demonstrate four key elements:

1. The occurrence of a contingency the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made.

2. Continued performance is not commercially practicable.

3. Lack of fault by the party claiming the defense.

4. The party claiming discharge did not expressly or impliedly agree to performance in spite of the impracticability.

Delaware courts will reject the defense if the circumstances causing the impracticability were a consequence of the party's own actions. Additionally, if the event precipitating the impracticability was reasonably foreseeable, the defense is likely to be defeated.

Here are some key differences between impossibility and impracticability:

In summary, impracticability is a defense that may be raised when a party's performance is made impracticable due to unforeseen events. However, it requires strong evidence and often faces strict judicial scrutiny.

Impossibility of performance is a doctrine that allows a party to be excused from a contract when unforeseen events make performance objectively impossible.

Courts assess factors such as unforeseeability, absence of fault, and whether performance has become commercially impracticable when determining if a party can be released from a contract.

The doctrine is distinct from but often related to force majeure clauses, which may contractually allocate risks of impossibility.

A party's own actions can sometimes lead to impossibility, as seen in the case of Chase Manhattan Bank v. Iridium Africa Corp., where the destruction of goods by the party's employee was deemed indirectly responsible for the impracticability.

Common examples of unforeseen events that can lead to impossibility include destruction of subject matter, death or incapacity, changes in law, and government-imposed restrictions.

Foreseeable events, self-caused impossibility, or mere increased costs typically do not qualify as valid defenses.

Here are some common examples of unforeseen events that can lead to impossibility:

The Kel Kim Corp. v. Central Markets case set a significant precedent in New York courts regarding the impossibility doctrine. The court ruled that the doctrine does not excuse nonperformance due to unforeseen circumstances.

The court's reasoning was that the doctrine is applied narrowly to prevent abuse and to allocate risks between parties. This means that performance should be excused only in extreme circumstances where the destruction of the subject matter or means of performance makes it objectively impossible.

In order for a court to deem an impossibility of performance, three conditions must be met: a contingency must have occurred, the risk of the occurrence must not have been due to the negligence of either party, and the circumstance must have rendered performance commercially impracticable.

A different take: Pre Payment Means

The Court of Appeals in New York has established a precedent for the impossibility doctrine in the case of Kel Kim Corp. v. Central Markets, 70 N.Y.2d 900 (1987). In this case, the court ruled that the doctrine does not excuse nonperformance.

The court reasoned that the doctrine is applied narrowly, due in part to judicial recognition that the purpose of contract law is to allocate the risks that might affect performance. This means that performance should be excused only in extreme circumstances.

The doctrine applies only when the destruction of the subject matter of the contract or the means of performance makes performance objectively impossible. In the case of Kel Kim, its inability to procure and maintain requisite insurance coverage did not meet this standard.

The court's decision in Kel Kim highlights the importance of considering potential risks and taking steps to mitigate them when entering into a contract. This can help prevent disputes and ensure that all parties are held to their obligations.

Take a look at this: Brian Kim (hedge Fund Manager)

A court's response to a contractual dispute can be unpredictable, but there are certain conditions that must be met for them to deem an impossibility of performance.

To void a contract due to impossibility of performance, a contingency must have occurred, something unexpected that wasn't caused by either party's negligence. This unexpected occurrence must also render performance under the contract commercially impracticable.

Courts often find these disputes weighty and will void the contract if all three conditions are met.

A fresh viewpoint: Void (law)

Government restrictions, such as orders prohibiting certain business operations, can render contractual obligations impossible. Restaurant closures and event cancellations are examples of this.

Travel bans and supply chain disruptions can also make performance impossible. In global contracts, restrictions on movement or export/import bans can prevent delivery of goods and services.

Business shutdowns can nullify the possibility of fulfillment. Contracts requiring in-person activities are especially vulnerable to this.

Here are some examples of how government restrictions can affect supply chains:

Emergency legislation making performance unlawful can automatically excuse the party. This can have a significant impact on supply chains and businesses that rely on contracts.

In the case of a contract requiring the delivery of a product, if a travel ban prevents the delivery, the performance is considered impossible.

If performance is possible but becomes excessively burdensome or expensive, courts may excuse it due to unforeseen events. This doctrine is known as commercial impracticability.

Courts are more likely to discharge parties' obligations if the contract's fundamental purpose is destroyed, such as if an event is legally prohibited. This is called frustration of purpose.

Parties can also mutually agree to terminate or modify the contract to reflect new realities through rescission or renegotiation. However, this requires strong evidence and often faces strict judicial scrutiny.

See what others are reading: Legal Purpose Is a Term Used in Contract Law Meaning