Which statement best describes the doctrine of impracticability?

Which statement best describes the doctrine of impracticability?

• A. It requires the contract be illegal.
• B. It applies when a supervening event makes performance more onerous, but still possible.
• C. It always requires impossibility.
• D. It discharges the contract when unforeseen events make performance impracticable.

Answer: (D)

Impracticability is about excusing performance when after the contract is formed an unforeseen event makes fulfilling the obligation extraordinarily difficult or costly—so much so that requiring performance would be impracticable, not merely burdensome. The key elements are that the event is unforeseen and that it renders performance impracticable, and that the party seeking discharge is not at fault. That’s why the best description is that it discharges the contract when unforeseen events make performance impracticable. If the task becomes merely more expensive or burdensome but still doable, that isn’t enough to trigger impracticability. It’s also not about illegality, and it doesn’t always require impossibility—the standard encompasses extreme impracticality as well as actual impossibility in some cases.

Impracticability is about excusing performance when after the contract is formed an unforeseen event makes fulfilling the obligation extraordinarily difficult or costly—so much so that requiring performance would be impracticable, not merely burdensome. The key elements are that the event is unforeseen and that it renders performance impracticable, and that the party seeking discharge is not at fault.

That’s why the best description is that it discharges the contract when unforeseen events make performance impracticable. If the task becomes merely more expensive or burdensome but still doable, that isn’t enough to trigger impracticability. It’s also not about illegality, and it doesn’t always require impossibility—the standard encompasses extreme impracticality as well as actual impossibility in some cases.