Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • Canadian Industrial Alcohol Co. v. Dunbar Molasses Co.

    Transféré par

    crlstinaaa
    840 vues1 page
    The Canadian Industrial Alcohol Company sued the Dunbar Molasses Company for failing to deliver 1.5 million gallons of molasses as stipulated in their contract. The Dunbar Molasses Company argued they could not fulfill the delivery due to their supplier not providing enough molasses, making the contract impracticable. However, the court ruled against Dunbar Molasses, finding no implied term excusing performance due to supplier failure absent destruction or circumstances like war or crop failure. The court held that normal supplier failure did not make a contract impracticable unless explicitly stated in the contract.

    Description originale:

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formats disponibles

    TXT, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    The Canadian Industrial Alcohol Company sued the Dunbar Molasses Company for failing to deliver 1.5 million gallons of molasses as stipulated in their contract. The Dunbar Molasses Company argued they could not fulfill the delivery due to their supplier not providing enough molasses, making the contract impracticable. However, the court ruled against Dunbar Molasses, finding no implied term excusing performance due to supplier failure absent destruction or circumstances like war or crop failure. The court held that normal supplier failure did not make a contract impracticable unless explicitly stated in the contract.

    Droits d'auteur :

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Téléchargez comme TXT, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    840 vues1 page

    Canadian Industrial Alcohol Co. v. Dunbar Molasses Co.

    Transféré par

    crlstinaaa
    The Canadian Industrial Alcohol Company sued the Dunbar Molasses Company for failing to deliver 1.5 million gallons of molasses as stipulated in their contract. The Dunbar Molasses Company argued they could not fulfill the delivery due to their supplier not providing enough molasses, making the contract impracticable. However, the court ruled against Dunbar Molasses, finding no implied term excusing performance due to supplier failure absent destruction or circumstances like war or crop failure. The court held that normal supplier failure did not make a contract impracticable unless explicitly stated in the contract.

    Droits d'auteur :

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Téléchargez comme TXT, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 1

    Supervening Impracticability

    Case: Canadian Industrial Alcohol Co. v. Dunbar Molasses Co. (1932, NY) [pp.
    818-820]

    Facts: P contracts to buy 1.5 million gallons of molasses, but D only delivers a
    small portion. D says that it was reliant their supplier and could not get more;
    thus the contract was impracticable. D argues that there was an implied term in
    the contract that made their duty to deliver proportionate to the refinery’s
    willingness to supply.

    Issue: Can a contracting party avoid performance based on the failure of a


    supplier? -No.

    Holding: P can recover damages against D molasses company.

    Reasoning: Court says no implied term.


    o D would only be relieved if the refinery had been destroyed, or if output
    had been curtailed by war or the failure of the sugar crop.
    o No mention of special circumstances in the contract.
    o The D’s claim would force the manufacturer to be at the mercy of the
    refiner.

    RULE: Doctrine of Impracticability does not include a normal failure of supply,


    unless it is explicitly written in the contract

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi