M Civ JI 142.43 Frustration of Purpose

Sometimes, if the main purpose of a contract is frustrated or destroyed, a party may not enforce the contract against the other party; that is, the party may not make the other perform what the contract required, or make the other pay money damages for failing to do what the contract required.

In this case, [ name of party being sued on contract ] claims that the main purpose of the contract in this case was frustrated or destroyed because [ state the facts / circumstances that allegedly frustrated the defendant’s purpose ]. [ Name of party ] denies this.

[ Name of party being sued on contract ]’s failure to perform is excused if it is more likely true than not true that:

(1) the contract was at least partially executory, by that I mean the contract had not yet been fully performed.

(2) [ Name of party being sued on contract ]’s purpose in making the contract must have been known to both parties when the contract was made, and

(3) this purpose must have been basically frustrated by an event not reasonably foreseeable at the time the contract was made, the occurrence of which has not been due to the fault of [ name of party being sued on contract ] and the risk of which was not assumed by [ him / her / it ].

If you decide that each of these things are more likely true than not true, then [ name of party being sued on contract ] is excused for failing to keep [ his / her / its ] promise and you must return a verdict for [ him / her / it ].

Otherwise, [ name of party being sued on contract ] is not excused [ for this reason ].

Comment

Molnar v Molnar, 110 Mich App 622 (1981).

History

M Civ JI 142.43 was added March 2005.