- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
- Posts
Sir, could you please help me with the following.
When a party fails to perform any of his obligations, they are exempt from paying damages where the failure to perform was:
-due to an impediment beyond their control, and
-they could not reasonably have been expected to take that impediment into account , and
-not could they have avoided or overcome either the empediment or its consequncesMy question is: what if the answer suggests one or two of the above, should we choose it ,or the correct answer assumes the combimation of all the three?
All three needed!
Think about it – if the impediment was within their control, why should they “get away” with the breach?
If they could / should have known of the impediment at the time they entered into the contract, why should they “get away” with the breach?
If they could have avoided either the impediment or its consequences, why should they “get away” with the breach?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.