Law homework help.
Should Trade Wars Discharge Parties from Performing Their Contractual Obligations?
If a contract is impractical to perform, the parties to the contract are discharged from performing, meaning that they have no further obligation under the contract. A court will discharge performance under a theory of impracticability when something unforeseen happens, after the parties enter into the contract, that makes the performance of the contract unreasonably difficult or expensive.
Hypothetical Example: On November 1st, Curtis Condos contracts with Refrigerators R Us to supply and install 100 refrigerators in Curtis Condos’ new 100 unit condo building. In exchange, Curtis Condos will pay Refrigerators R Us $120,000. On November 14th, the U.S. government imposes a 30% increase on tariffs imposed on appliances delivered by China to the U.S. As a result of the tariffs, it will now cost Refrigerators R Us $30,000 more to perform its obligation under the contract.
In your opinion, should the parties to this contract be discharged from performing on the basis of impracticability? Why or why not?
When is a contract unconscionable?
Review this week’s assigned reading and print lecture regarding unconscionability, and consider the following scenario:
Gil sells Jury a refrigerator on credit. Jury speaks little English and the purchase contract, including the provisions regarding future installment payments, are printed in English. Gil makes no attempt to translate or explain the contract. In fact, he tells Jury that he is giving him the refrigerator practically for free because Gil earns a bonus of $100 for each refrigerator he sells.
Do you think a court would enforce the contract? Why or why not?
Sydney lives in Los Angeles. She received an amazing job offer to move to New York City, so she is heading to the Big Apple. Sydney puts her home on the market to sell.
On April 1st, Beatrice the Buyer enters into a contract with Sydney the Seller to buy Sydney’s house. The escrow period is set to close April 30th and Beatrice is set to receive the keys to her new home on April 30th. The house is perfect for Beatrice because it is located right next door to the home of Beatrice’s elderly mother. In looking for a new home, proximity to her mother’s home was Beatrice’s top priority. Beatrice looks forward to being able to easily check on her mom daily.
On April 5th, Beatrice spends $10,000 to have Sydney’s home professionally inspected. On April 10th, Beatrice hires a moving/storage company for $10,000 and the company begins to pack up Beatrice’s current house (which is being sold).
Unfortunately, Sydney learns the job offer in New York fell through.
On April 25th, Sydney backs out of the contract with Beatrice– Sydney now wants to keep her house.
- Can Beatrice sue Sydney for breach of contract, requesting the remedy of specific relief– a court order requiring Sydney to honor the contract and sell the house to to Beatrice? What is Beatrice’s best argument for specific relief? [5 points]
Please write your answer in the text box provided.
- Instead of requesting specific relief, Beatrice sues Sydney for breach of contract requesting monetary relief (compensatory damages). What are Beatrice’s best arguments for monetary relief? [5 points]