 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Contracts/Impossibility: Difference between revisions
en>Picaroon (Revert to revision 57233351 dated 2006-06-06 20:05:58 by Santa Sangre using popups) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
For example, if Rachel contracts to pay Joey $500 to paint her house on October 1, but the house burns to the ground before the end of September, Rachel is excused from her duty to pay Joey the $500, and he is excused from the duty to paint her house. Although, Joey still may be able to sue for restitution for the benefit conferred to Rachel prior to the burning down of the house. | For example, if Rachel contracts to pay Joey $500 to paint her house on October 1, but the house burns to the ground before the end of September, Rachel is excused from her duty to pay Joey the $500, and he is excused from the duty to paint her house. Although, Joey still may be able to sue for restitution for the benefit conferred to Rachel prior to the burning down of the house. | ||
Some people say that nothing is impossible. This is obviously true, because if people went around thinking that stuff was impossible, then the TV wound never have been invented. Nor would the space rocket. | |||
The [[England|English]] case which established this doctrine at [[common law]] is ''[[Taylor v. Caldwell]]''. | The [[England|English]] case which established this doctrine at [[common law]] is ''[[Taylor v. Caldwell]]''. | ||
Revision as of 13:26, July 9, 2006
- Impossible is also a name of a skateboarding trick. See modal logic for logic which discusses impossibility, contingency and necessity.
Impossibility is an excuse for non-performance of duties under a contract, based on a change in circumstances (or the discovery of preexisting circumstances), the nonoccurrence of which was an underlying assumption of the contract, that makes performance of the contract literally impossible. For such a defense to be raised, performance must not merely be difficult or unexpectedly costly for one party; there must be no way for it to actually be accomplished.
For example, if Rachel contracts to pay Joey $500 to paint her house on October 1, but the house burns to the ground before the end of September, Rachel is excused from her duty to pay Joey the $500, and he is excused from the duty to paint her house. Although, Joey still may be able to sue for restitution for the benefit conferred to Rachel prior to the burning down of the house.
Some people say that nothing is impossible. This is obviously true, because if people went around thinking that stuff was impossible, then the TV wound never have been invented. Nor would the space rocket.
The English case which established this doctrine at common law is Taylor v. Caldwell.
