From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Synoym Usage[edit]

Isn't this the same as impracticability? Perhaps that should be mentioned here, or at least a redirect from impracticability to this article. -- Mason13a 16:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No, impracticability is different. -- LosHavros 22:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Impossibility is defined with the word impossible. just so you know. -- 00:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Before I noticed this I had the same thought, and edited in a note to that effect.

It's not as simple as saying "impossibility" in the title is a limiting factor -- the defense itself is defined by courts, and by usage, and now-a-days is it is generally accepted as including commercial impracticability, see UCC 2-615 comment 3.

However, whether impracticability is a gloss on the defense, or is a separate but related defense, it still should be referenced here for completeness, seems to me. D.A.Timm (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

“Unjust enrichment” example[edit]

The article contains the following example:

For example, if Rachel contracts to pay Joey $1000 to paint her house on October 1, but the house burns to the ground before the end of September, Rachel is excused from her duty to pay Joey the $1000, and he is excused from his duty to paint her house; however, Joey may still be able to sue for the unjust enrichment of any benefit conferred on Rachel before her house burned down (e.g. if Rachel paid Joey in advance, then the amount of payment might be a compensatory injury).

I don’t exactly understand. If Rachel paid Joey in advance, why would Joey sue for a “benefit conferred” on Rachel? Is the example just mistaken (i.e., it is actually Rachel may still be able to sue, to get her advance back), or am I missing something? bogdanb (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and since I don't know what the author meant by the parenthetical, which seems a non-sequitur anyway, I've deleted the parenthetical to reduce confusion. If the author wants to correct it, please feel free. D.A.Timm (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)