Doctrine of impossibility

Definition

The doctrine of impossibility is a legal principle that allows parties to a contract to be excused from their obligations when an unforeseen event renders the performance of the contract impossible. This doctrine is significant in understanding how contracts are enforced and what constitutes a breach, particularly when circumstances change dramatically after the contract has been formed.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The doctrine of impossibility only applies in situations where the performance of the contract cannot be done due to events beyond the control of the parties involved.
2. Common examples of events that may invoke this doctrine include natural disasters, government actions, or death of a party essential to the contract's performance.
3. Parties claiming impossibility must demonstrate that the event was unforeseeable and that they took reasonable steps to avoid or mitigate the impact.
4. Impossibility does not apply if the parties can still perform their obligations in some way, even if it is more difficult or costly than anticipated.
5. This doctrine is closely related to the concepts of frustration of purpose and force majeure, but they address different aspects of contractual obligations.

Review Questions

• How does the doctrine of impossibility relate to a party's ability to fulfill their contractual obligations?
  • The doctrine of impossibility provides a legal basis for a party to be excused from fulfilling their contractual obligations when an unforeseen event makes performance impossible. This means that if something happens that neither party could have predicted, and it prevents one from completing their side of the deal, they may not be held liable for breach of contract. The key is demonstrating that the event was outside their control and rendered performance absolutely impossible.
• Discuss how the concepts of force majeure and frustration of purpose differ from the doctrine of impossibility.
  • While all three concepts address situations where contractual performance is impacted by unforeseen events, they do so in different ways. The doctrine of impossibility focuses on situations where performance is completely unachievable due to unforeseen circumstances. Force majeure provides specific clauses that outline events freeing parties from obligations, while frustration of purpose applies when an unforeseen event undermines the very reason for entering into the contract, despite performance still being possible. Each has unique implications for contract law and liability.
• Evaluate a scenario where a party claims impossibility due to a natural disaster. How would you determine if the claim is valid under the doctrine of impossibility?
  • To evaluate a claim of impossibility due to a natural disaster, you would first assess whether the event was indeed unforeseeable and significantly impacted performance. You'd need to look at factors like whether reasonable measures were taken by the claiming party to prevent or mitigate damage before the disaster occurred. It’s also essential to determine if any part of the contract could still be fulfilled despite increased difficulty or costs. If it can be shown that performance was truly impossible due to the disaster, then the claim under the doctrine of impossibility would likely be considered valid.

Related terms

Force Majeure: A clause in contracts that frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance occurs, preventing one or both from fulfilling their contractual duties.

Breach of Contract: A legal term describing a situation where one party fails to fulfill their obligations under a contract, leading to potential legal remedies for the other party.

Frustration of Purpose: A legal doctrine that allows a contract to be voided when an unforeseen event undermines the primary purpose of the agreement, even if performance remains possible.