Examine The Contract Between Millie, The Seller, And Frank
Unit 5
This report will examine the contract between Millie, the seller, and Frank, the purchaser and the possibility of breach of contract.
Impossibility of Performance
There are times when someone has good intentions when agreeing to a contract but circumstances beyond their control
occur. The impossibility of performance is such an instance. The Impossibility of performance is broken into three types of situations that may make it possible to discharge contractual obligations. Impossibility of personal performance; 1) when personal performance is essential to completing the contract and that person dies or become disabled and is unable to complete that contract. Therefore the contract is considered discharged and his Estate
is not liable. 2) If the subject of the contract is destroyed; example if I purchase a set of china to be delivered and the seller drops some of the dishes on the way to the car. The subject of the contract, the dishes, would not be sellable and therefore the contract would be discharged. 3) If a change in the law makes the completion of the agreement illegal then the contract would be discharged, because the courts can’t enforce a contract if it involves anything illegal (Hill, 2011). In Millie and Frank’s scenario, Frank can’t sue Millie because he accepted the lesser amount which rendered the contract discharged. When the parties agree to accept something different than the original contract is called Accord and Satisfaction. Plus if he did sue her, Millie would not be considered in breach due to impossibility of subject performance. Due to weather conditions her crop didn’t produce and she was not able to sell what she didn’t have.
Commercial Impracticability
Commercial Impracticability is the policy that covers such instances where completing the contract would have devastating effects on the company. There must be extreme difficulty or hardship to petition for commercial impracticability. In Millie’s case it would have been devastating to try and purchase enough corn to resell to Frank.
Frustration of Purpose
The best case for Millie would be Frustration of Purpose because that is discharging the contract due to circumstances making it impossible for the contract to be completed as originally designed (Hill, 2011). This as well as commercial impracticability has to be under unanticipated events.
Conclusion
Although Millie had a contract with Frank and was not able to complete the contract as agreed Frank will not be able to sue for breach of contract because he accepted her offer and therefore the contract progressed to Accord and Satisfaction. Also Millie was not in breach due to Impossibility of Subject Performance, Commercial Impracticability, and Frustration of Purpose. Works Cited
Hill, C. (2011). Global Business Today (7th ed). Retrieved from Vitalsource: http://online.vitalsource.com/books/0078140196/id/P4-123
This report will examine the contract between Millie, the seller, and Frank, the purchaser and the possibility of breach of contract.
Impossibility of Performance
There are times when someone has good intentions when agreeing to a contract but circumstances beyond their control
occur. The impossibility of performance is such an instance. The Impossibility of performance is broken into three types of situations that may make it possible to discharge contractual obligations. Impossibility of personal performance; 1) when personal performance is essential to completing the contract and that person dies or become disabled and is unable to complete that contract. Therefore the contract is considered discharged and his Estate
is not liable. 2) If the subject of the contract is destroyed; example if I purchase a set of china to be delivered and the seller drops some of the dishes on the way to the car. The subject of the contract, the dishes, would not be sellable and therefore the contract would be discharged. 3) If a change in the law makes the completion of the agreement illegal then the contract would be discharged, because the courts can’t enforce a contract if it involves anything illegal (Hill, 2011). In Millie and Frank’s scenario, Frank can’t sue Millie because he accepted the lesser amount which rendered the contract discharged. When the parties agree to accept something different than the original contract is called Accord and Satisfaction. Plus if he did sue her, Millie would not be considered in breach due to impossibility of subject performance. Due to weather conditions her crop didn’t produce and she was not able to sell what she didn’t have.
Commercial Impracticability
Commercial Impracticability is the policy that covers such instances where completing the contract would have devastating effects on the company. There must be extreme difficulty or hardship to petition for commercial impracticability. In Millie’s case it would have been devastating to try and purchase enough corn to resell to Frank.
Frustration of Purpose
The best case for Millie would be Frustration of Purpose because that is discharging the contract due to circumstances making it impossible for the contract to be completed as originally designed (Hill, 2011). This as well as commercial impracticability has to be under unanticipated events.
Conclusion
Although Millie had a contract with Frank and was not able to complete the contract as agreed Frank will not be able to sue for breach of contract because he accepted her offer and therefore the contract progressed to Accord and Satisfaction. Also Millie was not in breach due to Impossibility of Subject Performance, Commercial Impracticability, and Frustration of Purpose. Works Cited
Hill, C. (2011). Global Business Today (7th ed). Retrieved from Vitalsource: http://online.vitalsource.com/books/0078140196/id/P4-123