Taylor v. Caldwell case brief

Taylor v. Caldwell; (King’s Bench, 1863); CB 993; Notes 63

Impossibility
• Facts: D supposed to provide a large estate w/ music hall for 4 dates and he would provide hall, amusements, fireworks, back-up band. P providing the stars, advertising and 100 pounds per night to Caldwell. D making $ for providing grounds, entertainment. P making $ from people coming to see the event. K talks about leasing the grounds and gardens, no specific promises made to P about hall.
• Holding: Court says that unexpected contingency makes performance by D impossible, so nonperformance is excused. If D’s performance is excused, Taylor has no remedy for breach.
• Commentary: Impossibility becomes an issue when it’s unanticipated. Both parties are excused from their obligations under the agreement because it is impracticable to perform.
• Doctrine of frustration of purpose: when underlying assumption has failed and performance no longer serves the purpose it was intended to serve.
• Mutual Mistake: If when the parties were signing the contract, unknown to them the concert hall was burning
• Note: Raffles mutual mistake was different b/c there was no meeting of the minds.