Ishmael V. Export Co

THEORY TO PRACTICE: Ishmael v. Export Co.

Tammy Scott

LAW/421

April 15, 2014

Rachel A. Lyne, J.D.

After spending 30 years in the shipping and logistics business, Ishmael decides to retire and become a consultant. He enters a contract with Export Co., where he promises to give the company 100% of his professional time for eight consecutive weeks. Export agrees to pay him $5,000 on the last day of every month.

Question 1

After a week, Ishmael determines that he is devoting more time than initially planned to Export Co and asks for a $1,000 pay raise. Export Co does not agree to this so Ishmael decides to cut his time by 20%. If Export Co decides to sue; Ishmael could use the doctrine of substantial performance to complete his performance obligations. According to “Uslegal” (n.d), “Doctrine of substantial performance is a legal principle which says that if a good faith attempt is made to perform the requirements of the agreement even if it does not precisely meet the terms of the agreement or statutory requirements, the performance will still be considered complete if the essential purpose is accomplished” (para 1). In order for Ishmael to win a substantial performance case he will have to prove that he can complete all of his work correctly and to standard as stated in his contract while only devoting 80% of his professional time. Export Co can still collect on damages caused by Ishmael even though Ishmael proved substantial performance.

Question 2

Two months into the contract Export Co loses a large client, which causes them to consider rescinding Ishmael’s contract due to impracticability. The courts may side with Export Co if they can prove that the unforeseen loss of their large client is extremely burdensome. The courts could see impracticability if the large client is Export Company’s major contributor financially. This would cause Export Co to start making cuts. Since Ishmael’s contract is new and there are already issues, it would make sense...