Also known as: impracticability doctrine · frustration doctrine · doctrine of impracticability · doctrine of frustration · commercial impracticability · frustration of purpose · impossibility · supervening impossibility
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A contract defense that excuses a party's duty to perform when an unforeseen supervening event renders performance impracticable without the party's fault or destroys the contract's principal purpose shared by both parties at formation. Temporary impracticability or frustration suspends the duty only for the duration of the event unless resumption would impose a materially greater burden than originally contemplated.
Diego Duarte and Dolores Diaz contracted to import lawful goods into a port. Unknown to them, authorities seized the entire cargo upon arrival because of a sudden embargo. The seizure destroyed the contract's principal purpose and discharged both parties without liability.
Devon Drake contracted with Derek Douglas to ship produce along a fixed route. An unforeseen canal closure forced a much longer voyage. The court held the cost increase did not discharge the contract because it did not fundamentally alter the nature of performance.
Dixon Foods contracted with Drake Logistics for daily deliveries through a single mountain pass. An avalanche closed the pass indefinitely. Drake's duty was suspended during the closure but would resume once the pass reopened unless the longer alternate route imposed a materially greater burden.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Delilah Duran rented a hall from Dustin Donovan for a gala whose sole purpose was to honor a retiring executive. The executive died the day before the event. The court discharged the rental obligation because the supervening death destroyed the shared principal purpose.
Decker Electronics agreed to manufacture parts at a specific plant. A fire destroyed the plant without either party's fault. Because the unique facility was essential to the bargain, the destruction rendered performance impracticable and discharged the contract.
Delta Dynamics contracted to buy rare minerals at a fixed price. A sudden export ban caused market prices to triple. The court held the price spike alone did not excuse performance because it remained within the risks allocated by the fixed-price term.
Temporary impracticability suspends the duty only while the condition lasts. The duty resumes afterward unless resumption would be materially more burdensome than originally anticipated.
The party must show that an unforeseen supervening event destroyed the contract's principal shared purpose without the party's fault, making performance pointless even though literal performance remains possible.
No. Substantial cost increases fall within the risks allocated by a fixed-price contract unless the increase is so extreme that it fundamentally alters the nature of the performance.
An express clause allocating the risk of a particular event may prevent discharge unless the event's occurrence imposes a materially increased burden that the clause did not contemplate.
…parts responsible, although the circumstances clearly pointed to such fact as the cause of the mishap. Can it be said that the impossibility of performance deprived the buyer of the benefit of the warranty? Moreover, the guaranty is against defective workmanship. That condition may arise from good parts improperly assembled.…