Impossible Education Case

Case of the Impossible Education
As parent’s you want the very best for your child so you pick the top neighborhoods, best doctors, and best schools to help ensure your child has all the advantages you can afford them. Investments such as these are not only for the child’s immediate gain but, to ensure that have a productive future. One such parent made this costly investment into his child’s future by paying a year’s tuition in exchange for a reserved spot at a private school. Unfortunately, his ex-wife refused to send the child to school that the father paid for (Bevans,2006 p.247). This action caused the father to seek a return on his payment and the school refused due to the contracts policy of no refunds due to loss of other revenue
Impossibility of performance in this case is defined as excusing a party from performing under an executory contract if the subject matter of the contract is destroyed without fault of the party seeking to be excused from (Bevans,2006 p.246). Court felt that issue of not send the child to the chosen school did not affect the contract and that it was still a possibility of the child’s attendance at the school. Impossibility of performance in this instance is subjective impossibility which is not a legal defense. Is a party that cannot perform the terms of the contract and must make alternative arrangements to ensure that the contract is performed or they will be found liable for breach of contract (Bevans, 2006 p.244). The courts found this defense not to have bearing in this
Unconscionable contracts are ones when the terms or conditions are obviously one sided that the contract would be voided (Bevans,2006 p.79). The use of this argument relates to the fact of the tuition payment being a large sum payment and the contract stating there are no refunds on the deposit or full payment regardless of attendance. Contracts like this doesn’t allow terms to be renegotiated by the accepting party leaving all power with the other. The court did not find this to be applicable to the case due to the fact the plaintiff was not forced to sign the contract by the defendant. There for his choice to sign and agree to the defendant’s terms were with clear understanding of the contract. The defendant argued that the plaintiff could have sought out public education or another private school for the child. The court found this portion of the contract to be enforceable as it was written because a reasonable person with common sense could agree to the defendant’s terms (Bevans,2006 p.