Minnesota
How American Standard, Inc. v. Schectman applies in Minnesota: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Contracts.
Minnesota follows the general principle that contracts must be performed according to their terms, and performance can be excused only under specific circumstances such as impossibility or frustration of purpose. The court in Minnesota emphasizes the importance of the parties’ intentions at the time of contracting.
In Minnesota, the courts apply the principle of freedom to contract while also maintaining the necessity of contractual performance in good faith and fair dealing.
The court held that a contract requiring the performance of personal services cannot be imposed through specific performance if the party's unique ability is not proven.
The court emphasized that the performance of a contract cannot be excused unless the grounds are established by clear evidence of impossibility or other valid defenses.
The court ruled that damages for breach of contract should adequately compensate for losses and reflect the reasonable expectations of the parties at the time of contract formation.
Minnesota's approach aligns with the federal standard concerning the enforcement of contracts and the necessity for clear evidence to excuse performance. However, Minnesota places a stronger emphasis on the subjective intent of the contracting parties, which can influence the courts' interpretation of contract terms.
Questions on the Minnesota bar exam may test the understanding of traditional contract principles, particularly the enforcement of performance and the standards for excusing performance based on impossibility or frustration.