In contract law, which statement is true regarding impossibility as an excuse for performance?

In contract law, which statement is true regarding impossibility as an excuse for performance?

• A. The risk of loss always falls on the seller
• B. If nothing is identified to the contract, the seller is not excused
• C. Destruction of something necessary for performance excuses performance
• D. Destruction of goods in a sale of goods always excuses performance

Answer: (C)

Impossibility as a defense kicks in when the thing you’re required to deliver or do no longer exists or cannot be done, and the failure to perform isn’t your fault. When something necessary for performance is actually destroyed, the obligation cannot be carried out as agreed, so the contract is discharged. That makes the statement about destruction of something necessary for performance the true limit of the doctrine. If the subject matter or a crucial element vanishes, there’s no way to perform, so the duty ends. For example, a contract to deliver a specific sculpture is discharged if that sculpture is destroyed before delivery. The other ideas mix in different concepts. Who bears the risk of loss or whether goods are identified to the contract concerns allocation or identification, not whether impossibility excuses performance. And destruction of goods in a sale of goods isn’t an absolute or universal excuse—timing, substitutes, and remedies under the applicable rules can affect whether performance is excused.

Impossibility as a defense kicks in when the thing you’re required to deliver or do no longer exists or cannot be done, and the failure to perform isn’t your fault. When something necessary for performance is actually destroyed, the obligation cannot be carried out as agreed, so the contract is discharged.

That makes the statement about destruction of something necessary for performance the true limit of the doctrine. If the subject matter or a crucial element vanishes, there’s no way to perform, so the duty ends. For example, a contract to deliver a specific sculpture is discharged if that sculpture is destroyed before delivery.

The other ideas mix in different concepts. Who bears the risk of loss or whether goods are identified to the contract concerns allocation or identification, not whether impossibility excuses performance. And destruction of goods in a sale of goods isn’t an absolute or universal excuse—timing, substitutes, and remedies under the applicable rules can affect whether performance is excused.