If A Specific Future Event Terminates A Party’s Obligations

If a specific future event terminates a party's obligations

QUESTION 1: If a specific future event terminates a party's obligations under a contract, that future event is called a(n): foreseeable event, continuing condition, avoidable condition, or condition subsequent.

QUESTION 2: If a verbal contract should be in writing according to the statute of frauds, but a party relies on the contract and takes detriment, a court may enforce the contract under the promissory estoppel doctrine.

QUESTION 3: If a party performs almost all obligations under a contract without intentional failure, a court may find that there has not been a breach under the substantial performance doctrine.

QUESTION 4: If a specific event must occur before a party is required to perform under the contract, the contract contains a condition precedent.

QUESTION 5: An unjustifiable failure to perform obligations may constitute a material breach of the contract.

QUESTION 6: When an unforeseen event renders performance prohibitively more expensive, the party's obligation can be canceled under the doctrine of commercial impracticability.

QUESTION 7: When C replaces B with A's consent, a novation has occurred.

QUESTION 8: The statute of frauds typically requires a contract that cannot be performed within 1 year to be in writing. The time begins to run from the date the contract was made.

QUESTION 9: Partial performance is an exception to the statute of frauds because actions indicating performance demonstrate the contract's existence.

QUESTION 10: An agreement to marry does not have to be in writing to be enforceable.

QUESTION 11: A contract requiring Spenser to build a house from March 1, 2019, to April 15, 2020, was not required to be in writing because it could be performed within a year.

QUESTION 12: Chuck's defense to breach of contract is that a supervening impossibility, due to a storm damaging the crop, made performance impossible.

Paper For Above instruction

The legal concept surrounding contractual obligations and their termination hinges on several key principles. A specific future event that terminates a party’s obligations is known as a condition subsequent. This condition acts as an event that, if it occurs, extinguishes the ongoing performance obligations of a party—unlike conditions precedent, which must occur before obligations arise (Eisenberg & Miller, 2010). The distinction is crucial because it determines how and when contractual duties are discharged or modified.

Contracts, especially those that are oral, are subject to the statute of frauds, which requires certain agreements to be in writing to enforceability. One such scenario involves contracts that cannot be performed within one year. The commencement date is generally considered the date the contract was made, which officially starts the ticking period (Miller & Jentz, 2020). The statute is intended to prevent fraudulent claims and assure enforceability. Nonetheless, partial performance allows courts to bypass the writing requirement when one party has begun substantial performance—such as making part payments or taking possession—affirming the contract's existence (Schwarze & Schwartze, 2018).

The enforceability of contracts also depends on performance standards. For instance, under the doctrine of substantial performance, a party who completes most obligations without intentional breach is not liable for minor deviations, which prevents unjust forfeiture of contractual rights. Conversely, material breaches—those that go to the core of the contract—can justify the other party's non-performance, or even termination (Farnsworth, 2017). The case of Chuck and the damaged crop illustrates the defense of supervening impossibility, where unforeseen events, such as a storm, make performance objectively impossible, thus excusing the obligor from breach (Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 1981).

The doctrine of commercial impracticability further supports this by recognizing that extreme events can relieve contractual duties when performance becomes prohibitively difficult or costly, provided these events are unforeseen and beyond the parties' control (Holmes, 2019). When a replacement party, such as C replacing B, is involved with A’s consent, a novation has typically occurred, transferring all rights and obligations from one party to another—requiring mutual agreement (Friedman, 2021).

Regarding agreements such as marriage, that are primarily promises that do not involve performance within a specific time frame, these do not need to be in writing to be enforceable unless they fall under the statute of frauds, which they generally do not. The case of Spenser's contract demonstrates that performance over a period extending beyond a year triggers the writing requirement, emphasizing the importance of timing in enforceability (Miller & Jentz, 2020). Similarly, Chuck's case shows how supervening events that render performance impossible serve as defenses against breach claims, illustrating the law's recognition of unforeseen obstacles, such as catastrophic weather conditions affecting crops (Restatement (Second) of Contracts, 1981).

References

• Eisenberg, M. A., & Miller, G. P. (2010). Contract Law: Cases and Materials. West Academic Publishing.
• Farnsworth, E. A. (2017). Farnsworth on Contracts. Aspen Publishers.
• Friedman, L. M. (2021). Contract Law in America. Harvard University Press.
• Holmes, O. W. (2019). The Path of the Law. Harvard Law Review.
• Miller, R. L., & Jentz, G. A. (2020). Business Law Today, The essentials. Cengage Learning.
• Restatement (Second) of Contracts. (1981). American Law Institute.
• Schwarze, J., & Schwartze, S. (2018). Contracts: Cases, Discussion, and Problems. Oxford University Press.