- This topic has 8 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Topic
-
Hi, I was hoping someone could help me understand this question.
Maco Corp. contracted to sell 1,500 bushels of potatoes to LBC Chips. The contract did not refer to any specific supply source for the potatoes. Maco intended to deliver potatoes grown on its farms. An insect infestation ruined Maco’s crop but not the crops of other growers in the area. Maco failed to deliver the potatoes to LBC. LBC sued Maco for breach of contract. Under the circumstances, Maco will:
a. Lose, because it could have purchased potatoes from other growers to deliver to LBC.
b. Lose, unless it can show that the purchase of substitute potatoes for delivery to LBC would make the contract
unprofitable.
c. Win, because the infestation was an act of nature that could not have been anticipated by Maco.
d. Win, because both Maco and LBC are assumed to accept the risk of a crop failure.
Explanation
Choice “a” is correct. Under the facts presented Maco did not contract to sell the crop from his land, but merely “1,500 bushels of potatoes.” Therefore, Maco would be required to come up with substituted potatoes from another source. The theory of “impossibility of performance” would not apply here since “potatoes” are otherwise available to the seller.
This was my thought process – the sale of potatoes would fall under the UCC, which would mean that the rule of impracticality would apply, not impossibility. Therefore, it doesn’t have to necessarily be impossible, but simply not practical for the other party to fulfill the contract. However, the answer still refers to impossibility even though it isn’t related to real estate, services, or employment, but rather the exchange of actual tangible goods. Could someone please explain? Thanks!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
