A business owner entered into a contract with a musician to perform at a grand opening ceremony for a new venue. Before the event, a natural disaster completely destroyed the venue, making it unusable. The business owner claimed they could no longer perform under the contract. Which legal doctrine is most likely to excuse the business owner from their obligations under the contract in this situation?
The legal doctrine of impossibility excuses a party from performing under a contract when an unforeseen event occurs that makes performance objectively impossible and is not the fault of the party claiming the excuse. In this scenario, the natural disaster destroyed the venue, making it physically impossible for the musician to perform at the agreed location. Impossibility applies because the performance cannot occur as originally anticipated. Other doctrines, such as frustration of purpose, focus on the loss of the contract’s value or purpose, not on the impossibility of performance itself. Impracticability, while similar, is not strictly limited to events that make performance wholly impossible but to those that create extreme difficulty or expense, which may not apply here.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What are the key elements of the doctrine of impossibility?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does 'frustration of purpose' differ from 'impossibility'?