Understanding Impossibility in Contract Performance

What is the standard for excusing performance in cases of impossibility?

• A. The impossibility must be foreseeable
• B. The impossibility must make contract performance illegal
• C. The impossibility must be temporary
• D. The impossibility must be self-created

Answer: (B)

The standard for excusing performance in cases of impossibility centers on whether the impossibility renders the performance of the contract illegal. If a contract becomes illegal due to changes in law or regulation, the parties are typically relieved from their obligations under the contract because they cannot legally perform what was agreed upon. This principle acknowledges the importance of legality in contract enforcement. In contrast, the other options do not accurately represent the standard for impossibility. For example, while foreseeability might be relevant in other contexts, it does not apply to impossibility in the same way. Similarly, temporary impossibility does not excuse performance unless it can be shown that the contract performance is truly impossible and not just delayed; therefore, it typically does not relieve parties of their contractual responsibilities. Lastly, if the impossibility is self-created by one of the parties, that party is generally not excused from performance. The law does not permit a party to benefit from their own wrongdoing or failure to perform. Thus, the requirement that the impossibility must make performance illegal is the correct and comprehensive standard for excusing contractual performance due to impossibility.

When you're studying for the Contracts and Sales Multistate Bar Exam, understanding the concept of impossibility can feel daunting. But don't worry! Let's break it down together. Think about contracts as promises that involve real obligations. When something goes wrong, and one party cannot fulfill their end, it raises the question of whether they should be held to their original agreement.

At the heart of this dilemma is the standard for excusing performance due to impossibility, and it's important to recognize that the impossibility must render the performance illegal. You might ask, "Why legality?" Well, if something changes in the law or regulations, leaving a party unable to complete their contractual duties, it's like being told you can't play a game you signed up for because the rules have changed. In such cases, the law recognizes that you simply can't perform what was originally agreed upon.

Now, here's where it gets interesting. Other options you might think apply—like foreseeability, temporary impossibility, or self-created impossibility—do not provide the same protection against performance obligations. For instance, while it might seem logical that if an event is foreseeable, it could excuse performance, that’s not how the legal standard works. In fact, foreseeability is more relevant in negligence cases, rather than contract law related to impossibility.

And then there's temporary impossibility. It's kind of like planning a picnic on a rainy day; just because it’s temporarily impossible to enjoy the sunshine doesn’t let you off the hook for the picnic. Unless you can concretely prove that the contractual obligations can't be performed at all, simply being delayed doesn't excuse you from your responsibilities. So, if a party creates impossibility themselves—like forgetting to obtain necessary permits for an event—they can’t turn around and claim that they can't perform due to a "newly created" impossibility. That’s not fair, right? The law insists that we can't play the victim if we’re the ones that accidentally put ourselves in a tough spot.

So, remember, the crucial standard for excusing performance in contracts rests firmly on whether or not the impossibility makes the contract illegal. It’s about recognizing the changing tides of the law and how they impact what’s right and enforceable. This understanding can truly make a difference when tackling scenarios on your exam where impossibility is involved.