Difference between Changed Circ's and Impract in K law? Forum

[NYC2014]

I'm not 100% sure what either is. Is one a subset of the other?

[ilovesf]

I'm not 100% sure what either is. Is one a subset of the other?

There are three types of changed circumstances: impracticibility, impossibility and frustration of purpose. The e&e teaches that impossibility has turned into impracticibility, my professor maintains they are two separate things, so I guess that is debatable.
R 261 defines impracticibility pretty well: (1) A party’s performance is made impracticable without his fault by the occurrence of an event the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the K was made, his duty to render the performance is discharged, unless language for circumstances indicate the contrary.
These things usually have to be unforeseeable. It can't be something like the economy has gone to shit.

edit: I realized that was a shitty explanation. It could be something like you have a K to buy a house, then overnight some arson sets it on fire and it no longer exists.. so buying it wouldn't be what you expected it to be because something substantially changed.

[NYC2014]

Gotcha. I don't think it has to be 100% unforeseeable, though, just unforeseen enough that it doesn't make sense to put it in the initial K (i.e. taylor v. caldwell, the concert hall burned down).

I didn't know the names of the doctrines, is all.

[ilovesf]

Haha, yeah, I edited it to put a fire example in right as you were responding.