Which of the following is a valid common-law excuse for non-performance due to unforeseen events?

• A. Impossibility
• B. Anticipatory repudiation
• C. Substantial impairment
• D. Accord and satisfaction

Answer: (A)

Impossibility is the rule that excuses performance when an unforeseen event makes it physically or legally impossible to perform. The event must be beyond the party’s control and not something that could have been anticipated. If the subject matter is destroyed, a necessary person essential to the contract is unable to perform, or a law changes in a way that makes performance illegal, the contract can be discharged and no breach occurs.

Anticipatory repudiation is about one party indicating it will not perform in the future; it’s treated as a breach triggered by that statement, not as an unforeseen event that makes performance impossible. Substantial impairment isn’t a recognized universal excuse for non-performance; it relates more to how closely performance must align with the contract for damages or advantage, not to a defense based on unforeseen events. Accord and satisfaction involves replacing the original obligation with a new one by agreement, not excusing non-performance due to unforeseen circumstances.