Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Performance Excuse

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Performance ExcuseQuestion 1 of 20

A research institute chartered a specially equipped icebreaker ship for a three-month scientific expedition to the Arctic, scheduled to depart on June 1. The purpose of the expedition was to study a rare polar algal bloom that occurs only during June and July. In May, the ship's captain and entire expert crew, whose experience was crucial for the dangerous voyage, resigned en masse to take jobs with a competitor. The ship owner could not hire a qualified replacement crew in time for a June departure. By the time a new crew could be assembled, the algal bloom season would be over.

The research institute sues the ship owner for breach. Which doctrine provides the owner with the strongest, though not necessarily successful, defense? Select one.

Impossibility, because the departure of the unique crew made it impossible to perform the service as contracted.

Frustration of purpose, because the ship owner's purpose of making a profit was frustrated by the crew's resignation.

Impracticability, because hiring a new crew in time was not commercially practicable.

The ship owner has no defense because the non-performance was caused by the voluntary acts of its employees.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Performance Excuse

Practice Performance Excuse in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Performance Excuse, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

The research institute sues the ship owner for breach. Which doctrine provides the owner with the strongest, though not necessarily successful, defense? Select one.

Impossibility, because the departure of the unique crew made it impossible to perform the service as contracted.
Frustration of purpose, because the ship owner's purpose of making a profit was frustrated by the crew's resignation.
Impracticability, because hiring a new crew in time was not commercially practicable.
The ship owner has no defense because the non-performance was caused by the voluntary acts of its employees. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. While the departure of the crew makes performance very difficult, the defenses of impossibility and impracticability generally do not apply when the supervening event is caused by or related to the party's own employees or agents. The ship owner assumed the business risk of retaining its essential crew. A is incorrect because the unavailability is due to the owner's own employment situation, not an external event like death or illness. This is closer to subjective impossibility. C is incorrect for the same reason. B is incorrect because frustration applies to the value of the other party's performance, not one's own. The owner bore the risk of its crew resigning, and this failure to perform is a breach.

Question 2

A corporation leased an office suite on the top floor of a high-rise building for five years, primarily to take advantage of the panoramic city views for impressing clients. The lease did not explicitly state this purpose. Two years into the lease, a new skyscraper was constructed on the adjacent lot, completely blocking the office suite's views. The corporation's business was not otherwise affected, but its executives were disappointed. The corporation sought to terminate the lease, claiming its purpose was frustrated.

Is the corporation's duty to pay rent discharged by the doctrine of frustration of purpose? Select one.

Yes, because the construction of the new building was an unforeseen event that destroyed the primary value the corporation sought from the lease.
Yes, because the landlord implicitly warranted that the views would remain unobstructed for the lease term.
No, because the corporation's primary purpose for leasing the office space was not substantially frustrated.
No, because the risk of new construction in a city is a foreseeable event that the corporation implicitly assumed. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. For frustration of purpose to apply, the non-occurrence of the frustrating event must have been a basic assumption on which the contract was made. The risk of new construction in a dense urban environment is generally considered foreseeable. Therefore, a party leasing property typically assumes the risk that views may be obstructed in the future unless the lease specifically protects against it. C is also a strong argument, as one could argue that having an office to conduct business was the primary purpose and impressing clients with a view was merely an ancillary benefit. However, D provides a more definitive reason for the defense to fail: the foreseeability of the event places the risk on the lessee.

Question 3

A company that manufactures electric car batteries had a long-term contract to buy lithium from a supplier at a fixed price. The contract was profitable for the supplier. A new extraction technology was invented that dramatically lowered the global market price of lithium to 25% of the contract price. The battery company could now buy lithium on the open market for far less than it was obligated to pay the supplier. The company notified the supplier that it considered the contract discharged by commercial impracticability because continuing to perform at the contract price would be ruinously expensive compared to the market rate.

Will the battery company succeed in its claim that its duty to perform is discharged? Select one.

Yes, because the extreme drop in market price was an unforeseen event that made performance at the contract price commercially impracticable.
Yes, because the purpose of the contract, to secure a stable supply at a reasonable price, has been frustrated.
No, because market fluctuations, even if extreme, are a risk allocated to the parties in a fixed-price contract. (correct answer)
No, because the doctrine of impracticability does not apply to a buyer's duty to pay for goods.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The core purpose of a fixed-price contract is to allocate the risk of market fluctuations. One party bets the price will go up (the buyer), and the other bets it will go down (the seller). A change in the market price, even a dramatic one, that simply makes the contract a bad deal for one party is not a basis for an impracticability defense. It is the very risk the parties contracted to allocate. A and B are incorrect for this reason. D is incorrect as a general statement; while rare, a buyer's duty to pay could theoretically be discharged (e.g., if a new law makes payment illegal), but not because of market changes.

Question 4

An engineering firm contracted with a city to design a new bridge. The contract specified that the lead designer would be a particular brilliant engineer employed by the firm. The engineer completed 90% of the design work and was paid for that portion of the work. Tragically, the engineer then died in a plane crash. The firm has other competent engineers, but none share the unique vision of the deceased engineer, and completing the design to his standard is not possible. The city wants the project finished and is threatening to sue the firm for breach if it does not complete the design.

What is the legal status of the engineering firm's obligation to the city? Select one.

The firm's duty is fully discharged by impossibility, and it has no further obligation to the city. (correct answer)
The firm must complete the design using its other engineers because a corporation cannot use the death of an employee as a defense.
The firm's duty to complete the design is discharged by impossibility, but the city may have a restitutionary claim for any benefit conferred beyond the payments made.
The firm's duty is not discharged, but it is entitled to an extension of time and additional compensation to find a comparable engineer.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. The contract was for the personal services of a specific, named engineer. His death makes performance of the contract as written impossible. Because the engineer was essential and unique, his death discharges the firm's duty to perform. B is incorrect because while a corporation's existence continues, the performance of a personal services contract that depends on a specific individual is discharged by that individual's death. C is incorrect because the facts state the engineer was paid for the work he completed, so there is likely no unjust enrichment for the city to recover via restitution. D is incorrect because the duty is discharged entirely, not just suspended or modified; a comparable engineer with the same 'unique vision' does not exist.

Question 5

A concert promoter entered into a written contract with a renowned violinist for a solo performance at a city's historic concert hall on a specific date. The contract stipulated a performance fee of $50,000. Two weeks before the concert, the concert hall, the only venue of its kind in the city with the required acoustics for such a performance, was destroyed by a fire caused by faulty wiring. The promoter notified the violinist that the concert was canceled and refused to pay the fee. The violinist sued the promoter for breach of contract.

What is the promoter's best defense to the violinist's claim? Select one.

Impossibility, because the specific subject matter of the contract, the concert hall, was destroyed without fault of the promoter. (correct answer)
Impracticability, because securing an alternative venue with similar acoustics would be prohibitively expensive.
Frustration of purpose, because the destruction of the hall made the violinist's performance valueless to the promoter.
Anticipatory repudiation, because the destruction of the hall was a clear indication that the promoter would not be able to perform.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. The doctrine of impossibility discharges contractual duties when performance has been rendered objectively impossible by a supervening event, the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption of the contract, and the party seeking discharge was not at fault. Here, the destruction of the unique concert hall, which was essential to the performance, makes the promoter's duty to provide the venue for the concert objectively impossible. B is incorrect because while securing another venue might be impracticable, the stronger and more direct defense is that the specific, named subject matter of the contract was destroyed, rendering performance impossible. C is incorrect because frustration of purpose applies when performance is still possible but has become valueless to one party. Here, the promoter's core performance—providing the specified venue—is itself impossible. D is incorrect because anticipatory repudiation is a breach of contract, not a defense to it.

Question 6

A city leased a waterfront kiosk to a vendor for one year for the sole purpose of selling memorabilia for a major international sailing race, which was scheduled to have its finish line directly in front of the kiosk. The lease agreement explicitly mentioned the race as the reason for the lease. Due to an unprecedented hurricane forecast, the race organizers rerouted the finish line to a different city 100 miles away two months into the lease term. The vendor, seeing no further business prospects, abandoned the kiosk and stopped paying rent. The city sued for the remaining rent.

What is the vendor's best defense against the city's claim? Select one.

Impossibility, because it is now impossible for the vendor to sell memorabilia for the race at that location.
Impracticability, because continuing to operate the kiosk would result in severe financial loss.
Frustration of purpose, because the principal purpose of the lease was substantially frustrated by an event the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption. (correct answer)
Mutual rescission, because the change in the race route effectively terminated the agreement for both parties.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. Frustration of purpose occurs when a supervening event, not the fault of the party seeking discharge, destroys the essential purpose of the contract for that party. The non-occurrence of the event must have been a basic assumption of the contract. Here, the sole purpose of the lease, explicitly stated, was to sell memorabilia for the race. Rerouting the race finish line completely destroyed this purpose, even though it was still possible for the vendor to occupy the kiosk and pay rent. A is incorrect because performance (paying rent) is not impossible. B is incorrect because while operating would cause a loss, the core issue isn't the difficulty of performance but its pointlessness, which is frustration. D is incorrect because there is no indication the city agreed to rescind the contract.

Question 7

An events company signed a contract to rent a large outdoor amphitheater from a park district for a music festival scheduled for July. The rental fee was $100,000. In May, the state legislature passed an emergency environmental law prohibiting gatherings of more than 500 people in all state and district parks during June and July to protect a newly discovered endangered bird species during its nesting season. The company's festival was expected to draw 20,000 attendees. The company canceled the festival and demanded a refund of its $20,000 deposit.

Is the events company's duty to pay the remainder of the rental fee discharged? Select one.

Yes, because the new law made the contract's performance legally impossible. (correct answer)
Yes, because the government's action frustrated the company's principal purpose for renting the venue.
No, because the company assumed the risk of regulatory changes when contracting with a public entity.
No, because the company could have sought a waiver from the legislature or modified the event to comply with the new law.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. Performance of a contract is discharged if it becomes objectively impossible due to a supervening governmental law or regulation that makes the performance illegal. The new law prohibiting large gatherings directly forbids the contracted-for event, making the contract legally impossible to perform. B is also a strong argument, but impossibility is the more direct and precise defense when the performance itself is outlawed. C is incorrect as parties are not generally held to assume the risk of all future regulatory changes unless specified in the contract or foreseeable. D is incorrect because the company is not required to seek a waiver or fundamentally alter the nature of its performance (a 20,000-person festival vs. a 500-person gathering) to avoid discharge.

Question 8

A winery in California contracted with a French company for the purchase of 1,000 specialized oak barrels, to be crafted by a master cooper who was the only person at the company with the skill to make barrels to the winery's specifications. The contract specified the barrels were to be made by this master cooper. Before production began, the master cooper quit his job at the French company to start his own business and refused to make the barrels. The French company could provide standard barrels but not the specialized ones. The winery sued the French company for breach.

Which of the following is the French company's strongest defense? Select one.

Impossibility, because the specific person designated to perform the service is no longer available to the company. (correct answer)
Impracticability, because it would be commercially impracticable to force the master cooper to return to work.
Frustration of purpose, because the cooper's departure frustrated the company's purpose in making the contract.
The company has no valid defense because it is responsible for the actions of its employees.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. This scenario is analogous to the death or incapacity of a person essential to performance. The contract specifically required performance by a named individual whose skills were unique. When that person becomes unavailable through no fault of the party seeking discharge (here, the French company), performance becomes objectively impossible. The company cannot force the cooper to work for them. B is less accurate; the core issue is the absolute inability to provide the specified performance, which is impossibility, not just a matter of increased difficulty or cost. C is incorrect as the purpose is not frustrated; performance itself is impossible. D is incorrect because while a company is generally responsible for its employees, it cannot be held in breach for being unable to perform an act that has become truly impossible due to the departure of a unique, named service provider.

Question 9

A shipping company entered into a five-year contract to transport iron ore for a mining corporation from a port in Country A to a port in Country B via a major international canal. This route was the basis for the contract's pricing. Two years into the contract, a war caused the canal to be closed indefinitely. An alternative route around a continent was available but was 3,000 miles longer and would increase the shipping company's fuel and labor costs for each voyage by 40%, eliminating its profit margin.

If the shipping company refuses to transport the ore via the longer route at the contract price, and the mining corporation sues, what is the shipping company's best defense? Select one.

Impossibility, because the specified method of performance (via the canal) is impossible.
Impracticability, because the alternative route is so much longer and more expensive as to alter the essential nature of the performance. (correct answer)
Frustration of purpose, because the closure of the canal frustrated the purpose of achieving a profitable transport arrangement.
The shipping company has breached the contract, as a mere increase in cost does not excuse performance.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. This is a classic impracticability case. While performance (transporting the ore) is not literally impossible, the prescribed method of performance has become impossible, and the only alternative is so fundamentally different and more expensive (40% cost increase) that it rises to the level of commercial impracticability. The closure of the canal was a supervening event, the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption of the contract. A is incorrect because transport is still possible, just much more burdensome. C is incorrect because the purpose of the contract (transporting ore) is not frustrated; it is the means of performance that has become impracticable. D is incorrect because a 40% cost increase, coupled with a fundamental change in the route, is significantly more than a 'mere' increase in cost and is sufficient to support an impracticability defense.

Question 10

A private school hired a contractor to build a new library, with a completion date of August 1. In June, a municipal ordinance was passed requiring a new, complex type of fire sprinkler system in all new institutional buildings. The ordinance took effect immediately. The contractor informed the school that installing the new system would delay completion until October 1 and add 15% to the total cost. The school insisted on the August 1 completion date and refused to pay the extra cost. The contractor stopped work, and the school sued.

What is the contractor's best defense for its inability to complete the project by August 1 at the original price? Select one.

Frustration of purpose, because the new ordinance frustrated the goal of completing the project on budget.
Impossibility, because it became legally impossible to complete the building as originally designed.
Impracticability, because the supervening government regulation made timely performance and performance at the original cost impracticable. (correct answer)
The contractor has no defense and is liable for breach for not meeting the deadline.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. A supervening government regulation that does not make performance illegal but makes it significantly more difficult or expensive can support a defense of impracticability. The new sprinkler requirement makes the original timeline and budget impracticable. B is incorrect because it is not impossible to build the library; it is just more expensive and time-consuming due to the new legal requirement. The original design can be modified to comply. A is incorrect because the purpose of the contract (building a library) is not frustrated. D is incorrect because the change in law provides a valid defense, at least regarding the delay and increased cost.

Question 11

Will the battery company succeed in its claim that its duty to perform is discharged? Select one.

Yes, because the extreme drop in market price was an unforeseen event that made performance at the contract price commercially impracticable.
Yes, because the purpose of the contract, to secure a stable supply at a reasonable price, has been frustrated.
No, because market fluctuations, even if extreme, are a risk allocated to the parties in a fixed-price contract. (correct answer)
No, because the doctrine of impracticability does not apply to a buyer's duty to pay for goods.

Question 12

A U.S. manufacturer contracted to sell specialized machine parts to a buyer in a foreign country. The contract required delivery within 90 days. One month after signing, the U.S. government, responding to a foreign policy crisis, issued an executive order imposing a temporary embargo on all exports to that country for a period of 180 days. The manufacturer notified the buyer that it could not deliver as scheduled. After 180 days, the embargo was lifted, but the buyer's need for the parts had passed, and the buyer refused to accept them. The manufacturer sued the buyer for breach.

What is the likely outcome of the manufacturer's lawsuit? Select one.

The manufacturer will win, because its duty to deliver was only suspended by the temporary embargo and was revived when the embargo was lifted.
The manufacturer will lose, because the temporary impossibility discharged the contract entirely as performance after the delay would be materially more burdensome to the buyer. (correct answer)
The buyer will win, because the manufacturer committed an anticipatory repudiation by stating it could not deliver as scheduled.
The buyer will win, because the manufacturer assumed the risk of an embargo when entering into an international sales contract.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. A temporary impossibility or impracticability suspends the duty to perform but does not discharge it. However, if performance after the delay would be materially different or more burdensome for either party, the duty is discharged. Here, the 180-day embargo caused a significant delay, and the facts state the buyer's need for the parts had passed. This makes the delayed performance materially different from what was bargained for, discharging the buyer's duty to accept and pay. A is incorrect because it ignores the exception for material burdensomeness. C is incorrect because the manufacturer's notification was a statement of its inability to perform due to a supervening event, not a repudiation. D is incorrect as such an embargo is not typically considered a foreseeable, assumed risk unless specific circumstances suggest otherwise.

Question 13

Is the corporation's duty to pay rent discharged by the doctrine of frustration of purpose? Select one.

Yes, because the construction of the new building was an unforeseen event that destroyed the primary value the corporation sought from the lease.
Yes, because the landlord implicitly warranted that the views would remain unobstructed for the lease term.
No, because the corporation's primary purpose for leasing the office space was not substantially frustrated.
No, because the risk of new construction in a city is a foreseeable event that the corporation implicitly assumed. (correct answer)

Question 14

If the shipping company refuses to transport the ore via the longer route at the contract price, and the mining corporation sues, what is the shipping company's best defense? Select one.

Impossibility, because the specified method of performance (via the canal) is impossible.
Impracticability, because the alternative route is so much longer and more expensive as to alter the essential nature of the performance. (correct answer)
Frustration of purpose, because the closure of the canal frustrated the purpose of achieving a profitable transport arrangement.
The shipping company has breached the contract, as a mere increase in cost does not excuse performance.

Question 15

A U.S. company entered into a contract to supply raw materials to a factory in Europe. The contract contained a detailed 'force majeure' clause that excused performance for delays caused by 'war, insurrection, flood, earthquake, or acts of God.' After the contract was signed, workers at all major U.S. ports went on a nationwide strike, completely halting all shipping for two months. The company was unable to deliver the materials. The European factory sued for breach of contract.

Will the U.S. company be excused from performance? Select one.

Yes, under the doctrine of commercial impracticability, because the strike was an unforeseen event that made delivery impossible.
Yes, because the strike is analogous to an 'act of God' and should be covered by the force majeure clause.
No, because the force majeure clause did not specifically list strikes, and its list will be interpreted as exhaustive. (correct answer)
No, because labor disputes are considered a normal business risk that the company implicitly assumed.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. When a contract includes a specific force majeure clause, courts often interpret the list of excusing events as exclusive. Under the interpretive canon expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another), by listing specific events like war and flood but omitting strikes, the parties are presumed to have allocated the risk of a strike to the performing party. A is incorrect because the presence of a specific force majeure clause preempts the general common law or UCC defense of impracticability; the contract itself allocates the risk. B is incorrect because a strike is a human-caused event and is not analogous to a natural disaster or act of God. D is a plausible real-world argument, but C is the better legal answer based on contract interpretation principles.

Question 16

The research institute sues the ship owner for breach. Which doctrine provides the owner with the strongest, though not necessarily successful, defense? Select one.

Impossibility, because the departure of the unique crew made it impossible to perform the service as contracted.
Frustration of purpose, because the ship owner's purpose of making a profit was frustrated by the crew's resignation.
Impracticability, because hiring a new crew in time was not commercially practicable.
The ship owner has no defense because the non-performance was caused by the voluntary acts of its employees. (correct answer)

Question 17

Is the events company's duty to pay the remainder of the rental fee discharged? Select one.

Yes, because the new law made the contract's performance legally impossible. (correct answer)
Yes, because the government's action frustrated the company's principal purpose for renting the venue.
No, because the company assumed the risk of regulatory changes when contracting with a public entity.
No, because the company could have sought a waiver from the legislature or modified the event to comply with the new law.

Question 18

A construction company contracted with a landowner to build a luxury home for a fixed price of $2 million. The contract specified that a particular type of rare imported marble, exclusively sourced from a single quarry in a foreign country, must be used for all countertops and flooring. After the contract was signed, the government of that foreign country was overthrown in a coup, and the new regime nationalized all industries, including the quarry, and indefinitely halted all exports of the marble. Sourcing a comparable marble would increase the construction company's costs by $750,000, representing a significant portion of its expected profit.

If the landowner sues the construction company for breach for failing to complete the home with the specified marble, which doctrine provides the company its strongest defense? Select one.

Impossibility, because it is now objectively impossible to obtain the specified marble from its exclusive source.
Impracticability, because a supervening event has made performance extraordinarily more expensive, and the non-occurrence of the event was a basic assumption of the contract. (correct answer)
Frustration of purpose, because the inability to use the rare marble frustrates the landowner's principal purpose of having a unique luxury home.
Mistake, because both parties were mistaken as to the continued availability of the marble when they entered the contract.

Explanation: The correct answer is B. Commercial impracticability discharges performance when a supervening event, the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption of the contract, makes performance extremely and unreasonably difficult or expensive. The coup and export ban were unforeseen, and the resulting $750,000 cost increase makes performance far more burdensome than anticipated. A is incorrect because performance (building the house) is not objectively impossible; a substitute marble could be used. The issue is the extreme cost, which is the hallmark of impracticability. C is incorrect because this doctrine would be a defense for the landowner, not the construction company, and it is not the best fit as the house can still be built. D is incorrect because mistake applies to an erroneous belief about facts existing at the time the contract was formed, not to subsequent events.

Question 19

What is the promoter's best defense to the violinist's claim? Select one.

Impossibility, because the specific subject matter of the contract, the concert hall, was destroyed without fault of the promoter. (correct answer)
Impracticability, because securing an alternative venue with similar acoustics would be prohibitively expensive.
Frustration of purpose, because the destruction of the hall made the violinist's performance valueless to the promoter.
Anticipatory repudiation, because the destruction of the hall was a clear indication that the promoter would not be able to perform.

Question 20

A farmer contracted to sell and deliver 10,000 bushels of 'Grade A corn' to a food processor on October 1. The contract did not specify the source of the corn. The farmer intended to fulfill the contract using corn grown on his own land. In August, an unexpected blight destroyed the farmer's entire crop. Corn was available on the open market, but at a price 20% higher than the market price at the time the contract was formed. The farmer failed to deliver the corn, and the food processor sued for breach.

Will the farmer's defense of impossibility or impracticability succeed? Select one.

Yes, because the destruction of his crop by blight was an unforeseen event that made his intended method of performance impossible.
Yes, because the 20% price increase made performance commercially impracticable.
No, because the contract was for generic goods and the farmer could have obtained the corn from another source. (correct answer)
No, because the farmer assumed the risk of crop failure by not including a force majeure clause in the contract.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. When a contract is for the sale of generic goods (like 'Grade A corn') rather than the output of a specific piece of land, the seller's duty is not discharged if their personal supply is destroyed. The seller is expected to cover by purchasing conforming goods on the market to fulfill the contract. The destruction of the farmer's specific crop only makes his intended method of performance impossible (subjective impossibility), not the performance itself (objective impossibility). A is therefore incorrect. B is incorrect because a 20% price increase is generally not considered extreme enough to rise to the level of commercial impracticability. D is plausible but C is the more direct reason for the failure of the defense; the nature of the goods contracted for is the key issue, not the absence of a specific clause.