Who Has The Burden Of Proof For Impossibility in Contracts?

The party asserting impossibility typically bears the burden of proof to establish that performance of the contract has become objectively impossible due to unforeseen circumstances.

It is worth noting that different jurisdictions may apply varying standards for this burden. In some places, there may be a shift in the burden to the other party to prove that the situation was not sufficiently extraordinary to qualify as impossibility if the asserting party has met an initial threshold. Therefore, understanding the relevant jurisdictional guidelines is vital for accurately assessing who bears the burden of proof in cases involving impossibility.

• 1Corpe v. Overton (1833) - Established the necessity for demonstrating actual impossibility in performance.
• 2Eastern Airlines v. Gulf Oil Corp. (1986) - Clarified the burden of proof rests on the party claiming impossibility.
• 3Hurricane Enters. v. T&N, Inc. (1990) - Discussed foreseeability and its impact on the burden of proof.
• 4Hawkins v. McGee (1929) - While focused on expectation damages, this case emphasizes the need for proof of conditions affecting performance.

• what-is-impossibility-in-contracts
• how-is-impossibility-determined-in-contracts
• differences-between-impossibility-and-frustration-of-purpose