Explain impossibility and its effect on contractual obligations.

Explain impossibility and its effect on contractual obligations.

• A. Performance becomes objectively impossible due to unforeseen events beyond control; the contract is discharged.
• B. Performance becomes expensive; contract remains in force.
• C. Performance becomes more difficult but still possible; contract continues.
• D. Only in commercial impracticability can discharge.

Answer: (A)

Impossibility discharges contract obligations when performance cannot be accomplished at all under the circumstances, due to events that are unforeseen and beyond anyone’s control. If the thing to be performed is no longer doable—for example, the subject matter is destroyed, or a necessary legal authorization is withdrawn—no one can be compelled to perform, and the contract is discharged to the extent of that impossibility. The other party is freed from the obligation, and damages for non-performance aren’t imposed for the portion that was impossible. If some aspects of the contract remain doable, those parts can sometimes continue, with the impossible portions excused. This rule rests on the distinction that mere increased cost or greater difficulty does not discharge the contract; those situations usually require possible performance to continue or a claim for breach or damages, rather than discharge. A related doctrine, impracticability, can discharge in unusually extreme cases where performance becomes commercially impracticable, but that is a narrower, separate rule and not the general impossibility principle.

Impossibility discharges contract obligations when performance cannot be accomplished at all under the circumstances, due to events that are unforeseen and beyond anyone’s control. If the thing to be performed is no longer doable—for example, the subject matter is destroyed, or a necessary legal authorization is withdrawn—no one can be compelled to perform, and the contract is discharged to the extent of that impossibility. The other party is freed from the obligation, and damages for non-performance aren’t imposed for the portion that was impossible. If some aspects of the contract remain doable, those parts can sometimes continue, with the impossible portions excused. This rule rests on the distinction that mere increased cost or greater difficulty does not discharge the contract; those situations usually require possible performance to continue or a claim for breach or damages, rather than discharge. A related doctrine, impracticability, can discharge in unusually extreme cases where performance becomes commercially impracticable, but that is a narrower, separate rule and not the general impossibility principle.