Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byLisa Murphy Modified over 9 years ago
1
1 George Mason School of Law Contracts II Mistake This file may be downloaded only by registered students in my class, and may not be shared by them F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu
2
Mistake and Impossibility An regret contingency occurs: what are the possibilities? 2
3
Mistake and Impossibility An regret contingency occurs: what are the possibilities? Both parties want out and write a termination agreement 3
4
Mistake and Impossibility An regret contingency occurs: what are the possibilities? One party only wants out and argues: Breach by the other party Condition precedent, mistake, frustration 4
5
What are the possibilities? So when should the event give rise to liability by one of the parties See last day on least-cost risk-bearing 5
6
What are the possibilities? So when should the event put an end to obligations under the contract, without any liability? 6
7
Catastrophic Events Force majeure clause A party is not liable for failure to perform the party's obligations if such failure is as a result of Acts of God (including fire, flood, earthquake, storm, hurricane or other natural disaster), war, invasion, act of foreign enemies, hostilities (regardless of whether war is declared), civil war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, military or usurped power or confiscation, terrorist activities, nationalization, government sanction, blockage, embargo, labor dispute, strike, lockout or interruption or failure of electricity or telephone service, or change in government regulations which makes performance of obligations under this contract impracticable. 7
8
Catastrophic Events Force majeure clause Why no least cost risk avoiders here? 8
9
Catastrophic Events Force majeure clause Why no least cost risk avoiders here? No one can efficiently reduce the risk No one is better able to evaluate risk Risk not diversifiable 9
10
Express and Implied Excuses Conditions precedent (subsequent) Mistake Impracticability, Impossibility, Frustration 10
11
Mistake and Impossibility 11 Time Formation of Contract
12
Mistake and Impossibility 12 Time Formation of Contract Mistake, Condition Precedent
13
Mistake and Impossibility 13 Time Formation of Contract Mistake, Condition Precedent Impossibility, Impracticability Frustration, Condition Subsequent
14
How to tell them apart? 14 Time Formation of Contract Mistake, Condition Precedent Impossibility, Impracticability Frustration, Condition Subsequent Cf. Restatement § 152, comment b
15
How to tell them apart? A horse is sold for breeding purposes. Unknown to the parties, the horse is sterile. This is only discovered later. Mistake or Frustration? 15
16
How to tell them apart? A supply contract bases prices on production costs, according to a cost index based on historical experience. Subsequently prices rise unexpectedly. Mistake or Frustration? 16
17
Who is mistaken? Mutual Mistake: Both parties Unilateral Mistake: one party only 17
18
What kind of an event voids a contract? Error as to identity Error as to substance Error which has a material effect on the exchange value of the contract 18
19
Error as to Identity Raffles v. Wichelhaus at 712 19 Peerless IPeerless II
20
Error as to Identity Raffles v. Wichelhaus Was there any way to enforce this? 20
21
Error as to Identity Raffles v. Wichelhaus Was there any way to enforce this? Restatement 20(1)(a), illustration 2 21
22
Error as to Identity What if both had meant the same ship? Illustration 1 22
23
Error as to Identity What if objectively it was clear that the contract referred to a particular ship, but one party is mistaken? 23
24
Error as to Identity What if objectively it was clear that the contract referred to a particular ship, but one party is mistaken? 20(1)(a): “has reason to know” 24
25
Error as to Identity What if both parties know of the other’s mistake? 20(1)(b), Illustration 2 25
26
Error as to Identity What if one party is mistaken and the other party knows of his mistake? 20(2)(a), Illustration 3 26
27
Error as to Identity Restatement §20 Mutual mistake: 20(1) Unilateral mistake: 20(2) 27
28
Error as to Identity What if one party is mistaken and the other party knows of his mistake? What’s the logic behind this? 28
29
Error as to Identity of a party Farmer Macdonald sells his farm to McInerney. Macdonald thinks that McInerney is a principal, but in reality he is an agent for Texas Gulf Sulfur. If TGS had revealed its identity, Macdonald would have realized that there were minerals under his land. 29
30
Error as to Identity Farmer Macdonald sells his farm to McInerney. Macdonald thinks that McInerney is a principal, but in reality he is an agent for Texas Gulf Sulfur. If TGS had revealed its identity, Macdonald would have realized that there were minerals under his land. Restatement § 153, comment g on undisclosed principals 30
31
31 George Mason School of Law Contracts II Mistake This file may be downloaded only by registered students in my class, and may not be shared by them F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu
32
Next week Finish Mistake Excuse (plus Scott 84-93) Frustration 32
33
Regret contingencies When should the event put an end to obligations under the contract, without any liability, at the option of one party? 33
34
How to tell them apart? The traditional view 34 Time Formation of Contract Mistake, Condition Precedent Impossibility, Impracticability Frustration, Condition Subsequent Cf. Restatement § 152, comment b
35
Mistakes Who is mistaken? Mutual Mistake: Both parties Unilateral Mistake: one party only 35
36
Mutual Mistake Kinds of mistakes: Both parties make the same mistake: Bargaining over a ship that has sunk Parties at cross-purposes: I sell you Rose 2d and you think you’ve bought Rose 3d 36
37
What kind of an event voids a contract? Error as to identity Error as to substance Error which has a material effect on the exchange value of the contract 37
38
Error as to Substance 38
39
Error as to Substance: Sherwood v. Walker at 712 39 Hiram Walker Rose
40
Another Hiram Walker product 40 Hiram Walker Canadian Club
41
41
42
Aberlone, Rose of By Brainerd Currie 42 'T is the middle of night before the exam, And there's nothing to eat but a cold bit of ham. A dismal specter haunts this wake-- The law of mutual mistake; … In many a hypothetical With characters alphabetical, In many a subtle and sly disguise There lurks the ghost of her sad brown eyes. That she will turn up in some set of facts is Almost as certain as death and taxes: For students of law must still atone For the shame of Rose of Aberlone.
43
Sherwood v. Walker 43 Was there a mistake?
44
Sherwood v. Walker 44 What is a “basic assumption” in 152- 53? Substance of the thing vs. quality or accident Error in substantibus Error going to “the root of the matter”
45
Sherwood v. Walker 45 Barren Cow What is Rose’s essence: “cowness” or “barren cowness” Fertile Cow
46
Mutual Mistake Restatement § 152 Has a material effect on the agreed exchange Comment c: resulting imbalance is so severe that he cannot fairly be required to carry it out Is that the case here? 46
47
Sherwood v. Walker 47 Did the mistake have a material effect on the exchange of performances? [(1420-50)*0.055 =] $75.35 vs. about $875
48
Sherwood v. Walker 48 Barren Cow Assumption of risk: Was Walker in a better position to know the condition of the cow? Fertile Cow
49
Sherwood v. Walker 49 Should the onus have been on the seller to specify a condition subsequent?
50
Qu. Backus v. MacLaury p. 729 50 Why no mistake here?
51
Qu. Backus v. MacLaury p. 729 51 No mistake: Buyer realized the calf might be sterile and took the risk
52
Qu. Backus v. MacLaury p. 729 52 No mistake: Buyer realized the calf might be sterile and took the risk How was this different from Hiram Walker? No one took the risk that Rose was fertile
53
Qu. Backus v. MacLaury p. 729 53 No mistake: Buyer realized the calf might be sterile and took the risk How was this different from Hiram Walker? Was there more of an assumption of risk here?
54
Unilateral Mistake Restatement § 153 Mistake of both as to a basic assumption Has a material effect on the agreed exchange Parties did not agree that one would bear the risk Either unconscionability or unilateral 54
55
Unilateral Mistake Distinguish two cases: Class A Unilateral Mistake A is mistaken and B is unaware of the mistake: unconscionability needed 55
56
Unilateral Mistake Distinguish two cases: Class A Unilateral Mistake A is mistaken and B is unaware of the mistake: unconscionability needed Class B Unilateral Mistake A is mistake and B is aware of the mistake: unconscionability not needed 56
57
Anderson v. O’Meara 718 57 Seller sells submarine trenching equipment
58
Anderson v. O’Meara 718 58 Buyer thinks he’s buying a Sweep Dredge
59
Anderson v. O’Meara 59 The District Court found a mutual mistake. Why did the Circuit Court disagree?
60
Anderson v. O’Meara 60 Was there a unilateral mistake? And of what type, in my classification?
61
Anderson v. O’Meara 61 Was there a unilateral mistake? And of what type, in my classification?
62
Anderson v. O’Meara 62 Was there a unilateral mistake? And of what type, in my classification? Class A: unconscionability needed
63
Anderson v. O’Meara 63 Would it be unconscionable to hold buyer to the contract?
64
Anderson v. O’Meara 64 So why was the contract upheld? Seller didn’t know what it was to be used for Buyer should have communicated the purpose Who was the least cost risk avoider?
65
Duty to Investigate 65 Gartner p. 727 Did one person have a special duty to investigate?
66
Duty to Investigate 66 Winkelmans v. Erwin p. 729 How would you decide this? Mutual or unilateral?
67
Duty to Investigate 67 Winkelmans v. Erwin p. 729 Did one person have a special duty to investigate? Was Thompson the agent of the seller? And did the buyers reasonably rely on her?
68
Duty to Investigate 68 Winkelmans v. Erwin p. 729 How would you decide this? Held: Mistake
69
Duty to Investigate 69 Jeselsohn p. 729 Held: mutual mistake The buyer could not have discovered the error by consulting the registry of deeds
70
Unilateral Clerical Mistakes 70 Elsinore at 728
71
Unilateral Clerical Mistakes 71 Elsinore at 728 Does it matter that the error was only $3K on a $90K bid Cf. Restatement §§ 152, comment c and 153, comment d
72
Unilateral Clerical Mistakes 72 Elsinore at 728 Does it matter that the error was only $3K on a $90K bid Does it matter that the bidder notified the school board the next day?
73
“As is” clauses Messerly at p. 725 73
74
Unilateral Mistakes: Irmen v. Wrzesinski at 724 74 $349 on E-Bay
75
Irmen v. Wrzesinski 75 Can the doctrine of unilateral mistake be a rule of economic inefficiency? How is this case like Laidlaw v. Organ?
76
Irmen v. Wrzesinski 76 How is this case like Laidlaw v. Organ? Note that the seller has every incentive to acquire the information, as he can command a higher price if he reveals it. While the buyer can only profit from the info he acquires if he is permitted to be silent.
77
Irmen v. Wrzesinski 77 So when does forcing information through the doctrine of unilateral mistake serve efficiency goals?
78
Irmen v. Wrzesinski 78 Does it matter what the buyer believes? Buyer believes that the seller is ignorant of the card’s value and is selling it for $12 Buyer believes that the seller is aware of the card’s value and is selling it for $1200
79
Irmen v. Wrzesinski 79 Does it matter what the buyer believes? Buyer believes that the seller is ignorant of the card’s value and is selling it for $12 Buyer believes that the seller is aware of the card’s value and is selling it for $1200 A Class A or Class B unilateral mistake?
80
80 George Mason School of Law Contracts II Mistake This file may be downloaded only by registered students in my class, and may not be shared by them F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu
81
Next day Finish Impracticability and Frustration 81
82
What kind of an event voids a contract? Error as to identity Restatement § 20 Error as to substance Hiram Walker, Anderson Error which has a material effect on the exchange value of the contract 82
83
Mutual Mistake: Alcoa 730 What was the deal? 83
84
Mutual Mistake: Alcoa What was the deal? Alcoa to convert alumina (aluminum oxide) for Essex EssexAlcoa 84 Alumina Aluminum
85
Mutual Mistake: Alcoa How was the pricing arrived at? 85 You can’t lose, Alcoa. Believe me!
86
Mutual Mistake: Alcoa How was the pricing arrived at? 86 And since housing prices can only go up, we need low interest rates so the improvident can buy second homes
87
Mutual Mistake: Alcoa How was the pricing formula arrived at? 87
88
Mutual Mistake: Alcoa How was the pricing arrived at? 88 Of course, we all know that the future will resemble the past Non-labor production cost = 0.03/lb. +/- 0.03
89
Mutual Mistake: Alcoa What happened to non-labor costs? 89
90
So what happened to oil prices in 1977? 90
91
Mutual Mistake: Alcoa Why did Essex want the supply of aluminum? 91
92
Mutual Mistake: Alcoa Why did Essex want the supply of aluminum And what did it end up doing with the aluminum it bought? 92
93
Mutual Mistake: Alcoa Why did Essex want the supply of aluminum And what did it end up doing with the aluminum it bought? Was this prohibited by the contract? What if this had been seen as a requirements contract under 2-306? 93
94
Mutual Mistake: Alcoa Why did Essex want the supply of aluminum And what did it end up doing with the aluminum it bought? Was this prohibited by the contract? Cf. quantities on p. 732 94
95
Mutual Mistake: Alcoa What was the mutual mistake, if any? Basic assumption or material effect or both? 95
96
Mutual Mistake: Alcoa What was the mutual mistake, if any? A “present actuarial error or a mistake as to the future? Restatement § 151 How would you state this as a present “fact” Should it matter which it is? 96
97
Mutual Mistake: Alcoa What was the mutual mistake, if any? A “present actuarial error or a mistake as to the future? Is Leasco different? 97
98
Mutual Mistake: Alcoa Did Alcoa assume the risk? 98
99
Mutual Mistake: Alcoa Did Alcoa assume the risk? Express language Trade custom Implied term: 739 “conscious ignorance of the facts”: a calculated gamble 99
100
Mutual Mistake: Alcoa Did Alcoa assume the risk? How would you have drafted the contract on Alcoa’s behalf? 100
101
Mutual Mistake: Alcoa Did Alcoa assume the risk? How would you have drafted the contract on Alcoa’s behalf? Essex put in a price cap, so why didn’t Alcoa put in a cost cap? 101
102
Mutual Mistake: Alcoa Did Alcoa assume the risk? How would you have drafted the contract on Alcoa’s behalf? A Gross Inequity clause: Beaver Creek at 775 infra 102
103
Mutual Mistake: Alcoa Did Alcoa assume the risk? How would you have drafted the contract on Alcoa’s behalf? Recitals: Whereas Essex seeks a supply of aluminum for its own use; and whereas both parties seek to be protected against price and cost fluctuations… 103
104
How do you think the parties would bargain to allocate such risks? What about the inclusio unius canon? Or the contra proferentem canon?: 740-41 104
105
Mutual Mistake: Alcoa What kind of a remedy? Why wasn’t rescission ordered? 105
106
Mutual Mistake: Alcoa What kind of a remedy? Reformation: how was the new price arrived at? 106
107
Mutual Mistake: Alcoa What kind of a remedy? The practice of foreign countries p. 744 Split the difference? How does “fairness” cut? 107
108
How many contracts do you think were affected by the oil crisis 108
109
How do you think the parties would bargain to allocate such risks? What about the case where no one could have foreseen the problem? 109
110
When is a mistake a mistake: Atlas 745 110 Atlas Corp. uranium “tailings” pile
111
When is a mistake a mistake What was the “mistake”? 111
112
When is a mistake a mistake What was the “mistake”? That the health hazard was much greater than had been thought And why wasn’t that a mistake at law? 112
113
When is a mistake a mistake What was the “mistake”? That the health hazard was much greater than had been thought And why wasn’t that a mistake at law? A mistake is a mistaken belief about an existing fact: Alcoa, Restatement § 151 But there is no mistaken belief about a fact whose existence was not known. 113
114
When is a mistake a mistake What was the “mistake”? That the health hazard was much greater than had been thought And why wasn’t that a mistake at law? Is this a sensible distinction, in terms of risk allocation? 114
115
When is a mistake a mistake What was the “mistake”? That the health hazard was much greater than had been thought And why wasn’t that a mistake at law? Is this a sensible distinction, in terms of risk allocation? Which looks more like a mistake as to a basic assumption? 115
116
When is a mistake a mistake What was the “mistake”? Did the court get it right, in any event? 116
117
Mistake vs. Impracticability and Frustration 117
118
The traditional understanding 118 Time Formation of Contract Mistake Impossibility, Impracticability Frustration Cf. Restatement § 152, comment b
119
The evolution From strict liability to impossibility and frustration From impossibility to impracticability Blurring the timing question 119
120
Blurring the timing question After the contract is made Restatement § 261 Restatement § 262: death Restatement § 263: destruction Restatement § 264: Govt reg. Restatement § 265: Frustration 120
121
Blurring the timing question Before the contract is made Restatement § 266(1): Impracticability Restatement § 266(2): Frustration Restatement § 152-53: Mistake 121
122
The Restatement understanding 122 Time Formation of Contract Mistake Impracticability Frustration Impracticability Frustration Cf. Restatement § 152, comment b
123
So what is the difference? Mistake 152-53: Basic Assumption, material effect on exchange Impracticability 261, 266: Impracticable, Basic assumption Frustration 265, 266: Principal purpose substantially frustrated, basic assumption 123
124
From Strict Liability to Impossibility 124
125
From Strict Liability to Impossibility Just what is impossibility? Paradine Stees 125
126
An Impossibility Defense Succeeds Taylor v. Caldwell p. 84 126 Surrey Gardens Music Hall
127
Taylor v. Caldwell On the program: On the program: 35-40 piece military band fireworks a wizard tight rope performances Parisian games (?!?) 127
128
Taylor v. Caldwell In what sense was performance impossible (as compared to Paradine?) 128
129
Taylor v. Caldwell The birth of the frustration doctrine 129
130
Taylor v. Caldwell Of the fire: Blackburn: men would say, if it were brought to their minds, that there should be such a condition And why is that? 130 Lord Blackburn
131
Taylor v. Caldwell What contractual gains were lost because of the fire? 131
132
Taylor v. Caldwell What contractual gains were lost because of the fire? Licensor loses license fee of £400 Licensee loses gross profits less rent 132
133
Taylor v. Caldwell What possible allocation of risks can you imagine? 133
134
Taylor v. Caldwell What possible allocation of risks can you imagine? Licensee takes risk and owes Licensor £400 for the license fee: Paradine 134
135
Taylor v. Caldwell What possible allocation of risks can you imagine? Licensee takes risk and owes Licensor £400 for the license fee: Paradine Licensor takes risk and owes lessee damages for foregone net profits 135
136
Taylor v. Caldwell What possible allocation of risks can you imagine? Licensee takes risk and owes Licensor £400 for the license fee: Paradine Licensor takes risk and owes lessee damages for foregone net profits Frustration: neither recovers anything 136
137
Taylor v. Caldwell What possible allocation of risks can you imagine? Frustration: neither recovers anything Why might this be the efficient result? 137
138
Taylor v. Caldwell What possible allocation of risks can you imagine? Frustration: neither recovers anything Why might this be the efficient result? Who is in the best position to value the cost of the lost rental? 138
139
Taylor v. Caldwell What possible allocation of risks can you imagine? Frustration: neither recovers anything Why might this be the efficient result? Who is in the best position to value the lost profits from the performance? P*L 139
140
Taylor v. Caldwell What possible allocation of risks can you imagine? Frustration: neither recovers anything Why might this be the efficient result? Licensor is the best person to measure risk of fire and licensee is the best person to determine lost profits 140
141
141 1.Where one party is better able to reduce the risk or the harm 2.Where one party is better able to value the loss 3.Assuming risk aversion, where one party is wealthier than the other 4.Assuming risk aversion, where one party is a better insurer because he can diversify the risk Four kinds of Least-Cost Risk Avoiders
142
The expansion of excuses A person who promises to do something which turns out to be impossible can always be held liable in damages, if he takes the risk But not if the contract is frustrated 142
143
The expansion of excuses And the modern rule is based on a more generous standard of impracticability, not impossibility 143
144
Carroll v. Bowerstock p. 756 Is this consistent with either Stees or Taylor? 144
145
Carroll v. Bowerstock p. 756 Is this consistent with either Stees or Taylor? Cf. the “work before pay” rule of Stewart v. Newbury at 626 and Restatement § 234(2) 145
146
Carroll v. Bowerstock p. 756 Is this consistent with either Stees or Taylor? Is the test on 757 consistent with the doctrine of unjust enrichment? 146
147
Carroll v. Bowerstock p. 756 Is this consistent with either Stees or Taylor? If liability lay in unjust enrichment, where was the enrichment? 147
148
RNJ Interstate p. 88 Why a different result? 148
149
RNJ Interstate p. 88 Why a different result? The contractor shall be responsible … until completion and acceptance of the entire work… 149
150
RNJ Interstate p. 88 Why a different result? The contractor shall be responsible … until completion and acceptance of the entire work… Who should insure against fire? 150
151
RNJ Interstate p. 88 Why a different result? The contractor shall be responsible … until completion and acceptance of the entire work… Who should insure against fire? But what about the Contractor’s loss? 151
152
152 George Mason School of Law Contracts II Mistake This file may be downloaded only by registered students in my class, and may not be shared by them F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu
153
Next week (after the break) Frustration Breach (Anticipatory Breach) 153
154
The evolution From strict liability to impossibility and frustration Taylor v. Caldwell From impossibility to impracticability Restatement Blurring the timing question 154
155
The Restatement understanding 155 Time Formation of Contract Mistake Impracticability Frustration Impracticability Frustration Cf. Restatement § 152, comment b
156
How does one keep them apart? Mistake’s origin is in differences in the nature of the bargain (“cowness”) But need it be restricted to that? Alcoa 156
157
Mistake in the Restatement Mistake 152-53: Basic Assumption, material effect on exchange 157
158
So what is the difference? Mistake 152-53: Basic Assumption, material effect on exchange Impracticability 261, 266: Impracticable, Basic assumption 158
159
So what is the difference? Mistake 152-53: Basic Assumption, material effect on exchange Impracticability 261, 266: Impracticable, Basic assumption Frustration 265, 266: Principal purpose substantially frustrated, basic assumption 159
160
The casebook doesn’t help Taylor and Howell as frustration cases 160
161
Howell v. Coupland 750 What was the contract? 161 Lord Coleridge, C.J.
162
Howell v. Coupland What was the frustrating event? 162
163
Howell v. Coupland Could the seller have substituted other potatoes? 163
164
Howell v. Coupland Could the seller have substituted other potatoes? And why do you think he didn’t? 164
165
Howell v. Coupland Was this a sale of goods? 165
166
Howell v. Coupland Was this a sale of goods? UCC § 2-105(1), 2-107(2) 166
167
Howell v. Coupland How would UCC § 2-615 handle this? 167
168
Howell v. Coupland What about UCC § 2-613? 168
169
Howell v. Coupland What about UCC § 2-613? When are goods “identified”? 169
170
Howell v. Coupland What about UCC § 2-613? When are goods “identified”? UCC § 2-501(1)(c) 170
171
Howell v. Coupland The Jack Sherman hypothetical on p. 756 Are the are goods “identified” under UCC §§ 2-613 and 2-501(1)(c) 171
172
Seitz v. Mark-O-Lite 752 172
173
Seitz v. Mark-O-Lite 752 Why didn’t the force majeur clause apply? What about the inclusio unius canon? 173
174
Seitz v. Mark-O-Lite Why not Restatement § 262? What gloss is added? 174
175
Seitz v. Mark-O-Lite Why not Restatement § 262? What gloss is added? If the existence of a particular person is understood to necessary by both parties 175
176
Seitz v. Mark-O-Lite Why not Restatement § 262? What gloss is added? See comment b and § 318 176
177
Canadian Industrial Alcohol 758 177 Why did an industrial alcohol company need molasses?
178
Canadian Industrial Alcohol 178 Why did an industrial alcohol company need molasses? + =
179
Canadian Industrial Alcohol 179 Suppose that Dunbar had supplied the molasses from another refiner. Would that have been a breach?
180
Canadian Industrial Alcohol 180 Why did Cardozo hold as he did?
181
Canadian Industrial Alcohol 181 Why might this be an efficient allocation of risk?
182
The Modern Doctrine 182 Transatlantic Eastern Alcoa
183
Transatlantic 760 What happened in 1956 183
184
Transatlantic 760 July 26: Egypt nationalizes Suez canal July 30: PM Eden informs Nasser that Britain will prevent the takeover 184
185
Transatlantic July 26: Egypt nationalizes Sues canal July 30: PM Eden informs Nasser that Britain will prevent the takeover Aug. 2: Britain mobilizes Sept 12: US, Britain, France announce intention to impose a solution 185
186
Transatlantic July 26: Egypt nationalizes Sues canal July 30: PM Eden informs Nasser that Britain will prevent the takeover Aug. 2: Britain mobilizes Sept 12: US, Britain, France announce intention to impose a solution Oct. 2: Charterparty executed 186
187
Transatlantic July 26: Egypt nationalizes Sues canal July 30: PM Eden informs Nasser that Britain will prevent the takeover Aug. 2: Britain mobilizes Sept 12: US, Britain, France announce intention to impose a solution Oct. 2: Charterparty executed Oct 29: Israel invades Egypt, Anglo-French forces land, Nasser blocks canal 187
188
The blocked canal 188
189
Transatlantic What is the “doctrine of deviation” 189
190
Transatlantic What is the “doctrine of deviation” What was the added burden on the carrier? 190
191
Transatlantic What is the standard for commercial impracticability? 191
192
Transatlantic What is the standard for commercial impracticabilty? Unexpected regret contingency Risk not allocated Commercial impracticability 192
193
Transatlantic Did it make sense to assume that the carrier assumed the risk? 193
194
Transatlantic Why did it make sense to assume that the carrier assumed the risk? “They are in the best position to calculate the cost of performance by alternate routes” 194
195
Transatlantic Why did it make sense to assume that the carrier assumed the risk? “They are in the best position to calculate the cost of performance by alternate routes” Risk of closure a matter of public notice 195
196
Transatlantic Why did it make sense to assume that the carrier assumed the risk? “They are in the best position to calculate the cost of performance by alternate routes” Risk of closure a matter of public notice In which case the risk might have been factored into the price 196
197
Transatlantic How would the case have been decided under UCC 2-614? 197
198
Transatlantic Was the carrier put to its election on damages vs quantum meruit? 198
199
Aluminum v. Essex 770 Cf. p. 730: The choice of Greenspan’s non-labor production cost factor constituted a mistake 199
200
Aluminum v. Essex 770 Cf. p. 730: The choice of Greenspan’s non-labor production cost factor constituted a mistake Now we’re looking at the same issues under the rubric of impracticability and frustration. 200
201
Aluminum v. Essex 770 Cf. p. 730: The choice of Greenspan’s non-labor production cost factor constituted a mistake Now we’re looking at the same issues under the rubric of impracticability and frustration. Can it be all three at the same time? Cf. Restatement 266 201
202
Aluminum v. Essex 770 What’s the difference between them? 202
203
Impracticability and Frustration Impracticability: “focus on greatly increased costs” Restatement § 261 Death or Incapacity of a person: 262 Res extincta etc.: 263 Govt reg: 264 203
204
Impracticability and Frustration Frustration: “focuses on a party’s severe disappointment caused by circumstances that frustrate his purpose in entering into the contract” Restatement § 265 204
205
Impracticability and Frustration Frustration: “focuses on a party’s severe disappointment caused by circumstances that frustrate his purpose in entering into the contract” Restatement § 265 Illustration 3: Hotel destroyed Qu. 263? Illustration 4: Govt reg Qu. 264? 205
206
When does a party assume the risk of the event? Williamette 765 206
207
When does a party assume the risk of the event? Wegematic 766 207
208
When does a party assume the risk of the event? Wegematic 766 “We see no basis for thinking that when an electronics system is promoted by its manufacturer as a revolutionary breakthrough, the risk of the revolution's occurrence falls on the purchaser” per Friendly J. 208
209
When does a party assume the risk of the event? Mishara 766 209
210
When does a party assume the risk of the event? Mishara 766 “A picket line might constitute a mere inconvenience and hardly make performance "impracticable." Likewise, in certain industries with a long record of labor difficulties, the nonoccurrence of strikes and picket lines could not fairly be said to be a basic assumption of the agreement.” 210
211
211 1.Where one party is better able to reduce the risk or the harm 2.Where one party is better able to value the loss 3.Assuming risk aversion, where one party is wealthier than the other 4.Assuming risk aversion, where one party is a better insurer because he can diversify the risk Four kinds of Least-Cost Risk Avoiders
212
Eastern Air Lines 767 Requirements contract upheld at 314 212
213
Eastern Air Lines Now: Impracticability under UCC 2- 615 213
214
Eastern Air Lines How had Gulf protected itself against price increases (and why didn’t this work?) 214
215
Eastern Air Lines Now: Impracticability under UCC 2- 615? 215
216
Eastern Air Lines Now: Impracticability under UCC 2- 615? The Suez cases “offer little encouragement…” 216
217
Eastern Air Lines Now: Impracticability under UCC 2- 615? “Those cases offer little encouragement…” “We will not allow a party to escape a bad bargain because it is burdensome” 217
218
Eastern Air Lines Now: Impracticability under UCC 2- 615? “Those cases offer little encouragement…” “We will not allow a party to escape a bad bargain because it is burdensome” Even great hardship not enough since the events were foreseeable 218
219
Eastern Air Lines Now: Impracticability under UCC 2- 615? Is this case inconsistent with Alcoa? 219
220
Beaver Creek p. 775 Did the parties seek to bargain for a broader doctrine of impracticability in their “gross inequity clause”? Is this what the parties in Alcoa wanted? 220
221
Beaver Creek p. 775 Did the parties seek to bargain out of the conservative trend in their “inequity clause”? What about the price adjustment clause? 221
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.