In: Operations Management
A farmer made a contract to sell and deliver 10,000 loads of soybeans. A flood destroyed his entire crop. He claimed that he was discharged from his obligation under the contract. Was he correct? No. The contract obligated the farmer to deliver a stated quantity of soybeans. It did not require the delivery of the soybeans that were grown on the farmer’s land. Therefore, the fact that the beans on his land were destroyed did not discharge the contract. The fact that the farmer probably intended to fill the contract by using the crop grown on his land had no significance because that intent was not made a term of the contract.
the QS is
was the farmer correct? can he discharge the whole contract? if it is considered discharge, what type of a discharge is it?
A Thumbs Up! Would be really helpful for me. If you have any questions, please leave a comment and I will get back to you as soon as possible.
Yes, the farmers are correct as he was told to deliver 10,000 loads of soybeans but due to heavy floods, the crop was completely destroyed. To contract states that he has to deliver 10,000 loads of soybeans but the farmer can only deliver from his own farm. If the crop is completely destroyed then how can the farmer deliver the soya beans? We all are aware of the conditions of farmers and if if the crop got destroyed then they do not have any other source from which they can deliver your product to you. So, here the farmer is absolutely correct and the contract should be discharged completely with the help of the court. This discharge will be considered as discharge by the destruction of the subject matter.