 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Contracts/Impossibility: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
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. | ||
Another example, being cooler than Shaun Danyleyko, simply isnt possible, thus, impossible. | |||
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 02:47, August 17, 2006
- Impossible is also a name of a skateboarding trick. See modal logic for logic which discusses impossibility, contingency and necessity.
"Doctrine of 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.
Another example, being cooler than Shaun Danyleyko, simply isnt possible, thus, impossible.
The English case which established this doctrine at common law is Taylor v. Caldwell.
