Question

1. Sonja and Western Heating agreed orally, via telephone, that Western would deliver the ovens within two weeks and that Sonja would pay for the ovens when they were delivered. Two days later, Sonja receives a fax from Western confirming her order. Shortly thereafter, but before Western delivers the oven, Sonja learns that she can obtain model X23 McIntyre ovens from another company at a much lower price. Sonja askes Western if she can cancel her order, but Western states that it intend to enforce the contract.

1. After Western receives Sonja’s order, it learns that McIntyre no longer manufactures ovens and that the model X23 ovens are virtually unobtainable anywhere in the country. Western immediately notifies Sonya that it will not be able to fulfill her order. Sonya, who stands to lose a significant amount in profits if the ovens are not delivered on time, sues Western for breach of contract. Western raises the doctrine of impracticability as a defense.

   1. Will Western succeed in in this defense? Why or why not? Define and Explain.

Answer 1

As per the facts of the case, there is a verbal agreement to sell between Sonja & Western which is not legally enforceable. However the Sale Order confirmation letter will be a valid proof for existence of such agreement, but it in no way stipulates a binding upon the Western to honor there commitments, such order for sale in the normal course contains a clause subject to availability of stock. Hence when there is no stock, they are not bound to process the sale. Moreover there is no question Sonja has accepted such order. Hence the contention of Sonja is not tenable.