Share
Explore BrainMass

flexibility in contract law

Consider the doctrines of "impossibility" and "impracticability." Under common law "impracticability" excuses performance of a duty, where that duty has become unfeasibly difficult or expensive. "Impossibility" is triggered by the occurrence of a condition, the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption of the contract. The major difference between impossibility and impracticability, is that "impossibility" excuses performance when the duty cannot physically be performed, "impracticability" is when it would be too burdensome. "Impossibility" is an objective condition, whereas "impracticability" is a subject condition for a court to determine.

Can there be too much flexibility in contract law? Is this flexibility good or bad for business?

Solution Preview

Sometimes contract law may seem too flexible. After all, those who entered into the contract could have foreseen some impracticability or impossibility when setting up the contract and should have accounted for the possibility thereof. However, contracts under public policy are meant to make sure that neither party is put into a worse ...

Solution Summary

Consider the doctrines of "impossibility" and "impracticability." Under common law "impracticability" excuses performance of a duty, where that duty has become unfeasibly difficult or expensive. "Impossibility" is triggered by the occurrence of a condition, the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption of the contract. The major difference between impossibility and impracticability, is that "impossibility" excuses performance when the duty cannot physically be performed, "impracticability" is when it would be too burdensome. "Impossibility" is an objective condition, whereas "impracticability" is a subject condition for a court to determine.

Can there be too much flexibility in contract law? Is this flexibility good or bad for business?

$2.19