Farmer J enters into a contract to sell 15,000 bushels of oats to ABC Mills. Flood destroys one-half of his crop. Farmer J

a. Is excused from performance od contract because of impossibility
b. Is excused from perf of contract because od destruction of subject matter
c. is bound to perf contract and is commit a breach of contract if he does not perform

Farmer J suffers a stroke and is unable to harvest the grain. Farmer J

a. a. Is excused from performance od contract because of impossibility
b. Is excused from perf of contract because od destruction of subject matter
c. is bound to perf contract and is commit a breach of contract if he does not perform

When Sam transferred to another city by his employer, Gary agreed to make all remaining payment on a mobile home Sam was buying from Green, Inc. Green's release of Sam and acceptance of Gary as a substituted party to the contract was

a. an accord & satisfaction
b. an anticipatory breach
c. a novation

I think the answer is A,A,A

contact

Let's break down each question to determine the correct answers:

Question 1: Farmer J's crop is destroyed by a flood. Is he excused from performing the contract to sell 15,000 bushels of oats to ABC Mills?

To answer this question, we need to assess whether Farmer J is excused from performing the contract due to the impossibility or destruction of the subject matter.

Impossibility refers to situations where the performance becomes objectively impossible, making it legally excusable. In this case, the flood destroyed half of Farmer J's crop, which makes it difficult to conclude that it is completely impossible for him to perform the contract. Therefore, impossibility does not apply here.

Destruction of subject matter occurs when the subject matter of the contract is destroyed or significantly impaired in some way that makes performance futile or impossible. Since the flood destroyed only half of Farmer J's crop, it can be argued that the subject matter (15,000 bushels of oats) is still available, even though the quantity may be reduced. Therefore, destruction of subject matter does not fully excuse Farmer J from performance.

The correct answer for this question is (c) Farmer J is bound to perform the contract and will be in breach of the contract if he does not perform. Despite the partial destruction of his crop, he still has the ability to deliver the remaining bushels of oats to ABC Mills.

Question 2: Farmer J suffers a stroke and is unable to harvest the grain. Is he excused from performing the contract?

In this case, we need to consider whether Farmer J's inability to harvest the grain due to a stroke qualifies as impossibility or destruction of subject matter.

If Farmer J's stroke renders it objectively impossible for him to harvest the grain, then he may be excused from performing the contract. However, we don't have enough information to determine if this is the case. It would depend on the severity of the stroke and the potential for other means of harvesting or assistance.

Since the question does not provide more details, we cannot conclude that there is impossibility or destruction of subject matter. Therefore, the correct answer is also (c) Farmer J is bound to perform the contract and would be in breach if he does not perform.

Question 3: Sam transferred to another city, and Gary agreed to make all remaining payments on a mobile home Sam was buying from Green, Inc. What is this situation called?

In this scenario, Sam is being released from the contract with Green, Inc., and Gary is being accepted as a substituted party. We need to determine what this type of situation is referred to as.

An accord and satisfaction typically occurs when parties agree to settle a disputed claim by offering and accepting a different performance than originally required. Since there is no mention of a disputed claim or settlement, it is not an accord and satisfaction.

An anticipatory breach would be a situation where one party indicates in advance that they will not perform their obligations under the contract. This is not the case here since there is no indication that Sam or Gary have breached or will breach the contract.

A novation occurs when one party is substituted by another with the consent of all parties involved, thereby replacing the original party. This is the applicable situation in this case when Sam is released, and Gary becomes the party responsible for making the remaining payments.

Therefore, the correct answer is (c) a novation.

In summary, the correct answers are:
Question 1: (c)
Question 2: (c)
Question 3: (c)