Which doctrines excuse performance when unforeseen events make performance impossible or commercially impracticable?

Which doctrines excuse performance when unforeseen events make performance impossible or commercially impracticable?

• A. Impossibility and impracticability.
• B. Anticipatory breach and frustration of purpose.
• C. Specific performance and rescission.
• D. Force majeure and mutual rescission.

Answer: (A)

The main concept tested is the idea that certain doctrines excuse performance when unforeseen events make it truly impossible or commercially impracticable to perform. Impossibility applies when performance cannot be done at all due to an event outside the parties’ control (for example, the subject matter is destroyed or performing would be illegal). Impracticability covers situations where performance remains physically possible but would be extremely burdensome or costly relative to what was contemplated, making it impracticable to proceed. This is why the best answer is the pair of impossibility and impracticability. Anticipatory breach concerns one party signaling nonperformance before performance is due, which is a breach issue rather than an excuse based on impossibility or impracticability. Frustration of purpose involves the contract’s overall purpose being undermined, yet performance could still be possible, so it’s a different rationale. Specific performance and rescission describe remedies or termination by agreement, not the doctrines that excuse performance due to unforeseen events. Force majeure is a contractual clause, not a general doctrinal exception, and mutual rescission is an agreed termination, not the underlying excuse.

The main concept tested is the idea that certain doctrines excuse performance when unforeseen events make it truly impossible or commercially impracticable to perform. Impossibility applies when performance cannot be done at all due to an event outside the parties’ control (for example, the subject matter is destroyed or performing would be illegal). Impracticability covers situations where performance remains physically possible but would be extremely burdensome or costly relative to what was contemplated, making it impracticable to proceed.

This is why the best answer is the pair of impossibility and impracticability. Anticipatory breach concerns one party signaling nonperformance before performance is due, which is a breach issue rather than an excuse based on impossibility or impracticability. Frustration of purpose involves the contract’s overall purpose being undermined, yet performance could still be possible, so it’s a different rationale. Specific performance and rescission describe remedies or termination by agreement, not the doctrines that excuse performance due to unforeseen events. Force majeure is a contractual clause, not a general doctrinal exception, and mutual rescission is an agreed termination, not the underlying excuse.