280 likes | 375 Views
George Mason School of Law. Contracts II Frustration F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu. Next day. Scott up to Restitution Damages. Lesson from Amy Chua. Lesson from Amy Chua. You must be a standard deviation ahead of the day class!. Lesson from Amy Chua.
E N D
George Mason School of Law Contracts II Frustration F.H. Buckley fbuckley@gmu.edu
Next day • Scott up to Restitution Damages
Lesson from Amy Chua • You must be a standard deviation ahead of the day class!
Lesson from Amy Chua • You must be a standard deviation ahead of the day class! • An A-minus is a bad grade!
Lesson from Amy Chua • You must be a standard deviation ahead of the day class! • An A-minus is a bad grade! • If the next time’s not PERFECT, I’m going to TAKE ALL YOUR STUFFED ANIMALS AND BURN THEM!
Frustration vs. Impracticability • So what’s the difference?
Impracticability • Teitelbam at 773: “focus on greatly increased costs” • Traynor at 787: expected value of performance is destroyed
Impracticability • Impracticability: Restatement § 261 • Death or Incapacity of a person: 262 • Res extincta etc.: 263 • Govt reg: 264
Frustration • Teitelbaum at 773: “focuses on a party’s severe disappointment caused by circumstances that frustrate his purpose in entering into the contract” • Traynor at 787: performance is vitally different from what was expected
Frustration • Frustration: Restatement § 265 • Illustration 3: Hotel destroyed • Illustration 4: Govt reg
Impracticability vs.Frustration • Impracticabilty: focus is on provider of goods or services, where performance is impossible or vastly more expenses • Frustration: focus is on buyer of goods or services
Frustration: Krell v. Henry • What was the amount of the license?
Frustration: Krell v. Henry • What was the amount of the license? • About $400 for two days.
Frustration: Krell v. Henry • Was performance of the license impossible? • Contrast Paradine
Frustration: Krell v. Henry • Was performance of the license impossible? • Cessation of an event that went to the root of the contract and essential to its performance. • A license to use rooms for a particular purpose
Frustration: Krell v. Henry • Did the Π assume or anticipate the risk? • Who should bear the risk?
Lloyd v. Murphy 785 American Academy of Motion Pictures, Wilshire and Almont, Beverly Hills CA
Lloyd v. Murphy • Was the restriction to new car sales a problem? • Given the waiver… • “It was just the location…”
Lloyd v. Murphy • Should the defendants on August 4, 1941 have anticipated Pearl Harbor? • “it cannot be said the risk of war was so remote a contingency”
Lloyd v. Murphy • Does it matter that this was a lease?
Lloyd v. Murphy • Does it matter that this was a lease? • What’s a landlord supposed to know? • “No case…” p.789
Changes in government regulationsRestatement 264 • Mayer p. 789 • Consumers Power p.790 • Goshie Farms p. 790
Substantiality Requirement • Cf. Restatement 152 on mistake • “material effect on the agreed exchanges” • Should this be implied in frustration cases? • Haas p. 791
Common Purpose Requirement • Edwards p. 791
Common Purpose Requirement • Edwards p. 791 • Why might this make sense?
Alabama Football • Qu. Future obligations • Qu. The bonus