Talk:Impossibility of performance
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
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Synoym Usage
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. --72.205.55.209 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
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)
Names in Example?
Why are the names in this example Ebenezer and Erasmus? I can't find any other examples of anything like this that have names like that in their examples. The edit to add them seems to have been only an edit to make the names Ebenezer and Erasmus without explanation, which feels off. 2620:10D:C090:600:0:0:1:EFD7 (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, and two names starting with E is not ideal. Gnom (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.