March 5, 2021

Volume XI, Number 64


March 05, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

March 04, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

March 03, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Client Alert: An Introduction to the Doctrines of Impossibility and Frustration of Purpose

Even in its early stages, there is no doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic and its accompanying social distancing, quarantines, mass-closings of businesses and institutions, and governmentally-mandated restrictions on public assembly, travel and dining-out, have rendered many pre-pandemic contractual obligations difficult, or impossible, to perform. As discussed in our March 13, 2020 Client Alert (available here), force majeure clauses may excuse certain types of contractual performance. Additionally, governmental intervention or business interruption insurance, to the extent available, might mitigate some economic losses. However, what happens when neither a force majeure clause, business interruption insurance, nor governmental intervention can provide the desired relief? In that situation, businesses may be forced to rely on the seldom-used legal doctrines of “impossibility” and “frustration of purpose” as defenses against onerous pre-crisis contractual obligations.

The contractual defense of impossibility may be applied where a particular condition, which both parties to the contract assumed would continue when the contract was signed, ceases to exist as a result of an unforeseeable supervening event occurring without the fault of either party. For example, it seems obvious that the parties to a contract booking a venue for a music festival assumed that gatherings of more than 250 people would not be prohibited by state law when the booking contract was signed. However, that condition clearly ceased to exist when Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker prohibited such public assemblies. Moreover, while the foregoing example is a useful illustration of where the defense of impossibility might clearly be applicable, under Massachusetts law, an outright governmental ban on the contract’s purpose is not always required for a contract party to utilize the defense of impossibility. Notwithstanding the doctrine being called “impossibility,” under Massachusetts law, dramatically increased difficulty and expense of performance can implicate virtual, if not actual, impossibility.

In addition to the doctrine of impossibility, Massachusetts courts have also applied the doctrine of frustration of purpose, which is a ‘companion doctrine’ of impossibility. As set forth in the case of Chase Precast Corp. v. John J. Paonessa Co., Inc., 409 Mass. 371 (1991), the doctrine of impossibility and the doctrine of frustration of purpose “differ only in the effect of the fortuitous supervening event.” As illustrated by the above example, where performance under a contract for a music festival booking agreement would likely be excused due to governmental prohibition on public assembly, impossibility is appropriate where the object or purpose of a contract is destroyed, thus destroying the value of performance. Frustration of purpose, on the other hand, may be available when contractual performance remains possible, but such performance would produce a dramatically different result from what the parties anticipated when the contract was signed. For example, frustration of purpose might be a valid defense to contractual performance if, using our hypothetical music festival example again, we assume that there is no ban on public assembly, but air, bus and rail travel to the festival location are all banned or dramatically restricted. In this hypothetical example, holding the festival would be possible, but the travel restrictions would make it far more difficult for ticket-holders and performers to get to the venue than was anticipated when the festival booking agreement was signed.

Whether utilizing the defense of impossibility or frustration of purpose, one of the most important factors that courts consider when deciding whether to excuse performance is whether the intervening event was foreseeable when the contract was signed. If the intervening event was not foreseeable, and the intervening event rises to the level of destroying the object of the contract (if the defense is impossibility) or dramatically changing the expected value of the contract (if the defense is frustration of purpose), it is possible that contractual performance will be excused, even without the protection of a force majeure clause. On the other hand, if the intervening event was foreseeable, absent a useful force majeure clause, the courts may find in favor of strict contractual compliance. Whether or not a pandemic like the current COVID-19 crisis, and the myriad adverse consequences resulting therefrom, was or should have been foreseeable at the time in question is an issue that we expect to be litigated in courts around the country in the near future.

Whether you are attempting to collect business interruption insurance, rely on a force majeure clause, or rely on the doctrines of impossibility or frustration of purpose, be sure to stay in close contact with your attorney during these uncertain times. Now more than ever, good legal counsel is critically important. Finally, remember to put your own health, and the health of those around you, above any legal or economic concerns. As the old saying goes, “if you don’t have your health, you don’t have anything.”

© 2020 SHERIN AND LODGEN LLPNational Law Review, Volume X, Number 78



About this Author

Joshua Bowman Real Estate Attorney Sherin Lodgen

Joshua M. Bowman is a partner in the firm’s Real Estate and Corporate departments and is chair of the firm’s Hospitality Practice Group.

Described by his clients as “a skilled and tenacious attorney with a collegial demeanor” who provides “a practical approach with deal-focused creativity,” Josh brings years of experience counseling local and national real estate owners and developers, institutional and non-institutional lenders, investors, tenants, contractors, and other businesses in connection with a wide variety of...

Thomas Hippler Real Estate Attorney Sherin Lodgen Law Firm
Of Counsel

Thomas A. Hippler is Of Counsel in the firm’s Real Estate and Business Law departments.

Tom’s practice focuses on representation of retailers and developers in commercial real estate matters, including leasing, acquisition, development, and financing. He also represents companies on corporate matters including compliance, risk management, and governance. Tom returned to the firm after sixteen years leading the U.S. legal function of Koninklijke Ahold N.V., an international food and e-commerce retailer.

Prior to rejoining Sherin and Lodgen, Tom served as Executive Vice...

Jessica Kelly  Real Estate, and Professional Malpractice Disputes Attorney Sherin Lodgen law firm

Jessica G. Kelly is an experienced litigator who helps clients resolve complex business, real estate, and professional malpractice disputes and disciplinary investigations.

Ms. Kelly is a partner in the firm’s Litigation Department and is chair of the firm’s pro bono practice. She assists clients in a variety of industries with complex business litigation, including finance, biotech, and national retail. She also assists clients in real estate title, permitting, and environmental matters, as well as disputes arising from the purchase and sale of...

Joseph Wang Hospitality Attorney Sherin Lodgen Law Firm

Joseph Y. Wang is a partner in the firm’s Real Estate Department and member of its Hospitality Practice Group.

He has experience in a variety of real estate matters, including land use, zoning and development, and representing landlords and tenants in office, retail, and research and development leasing matters large and small.

Joseph has been engaged in several large development projects in Boston, where he has negotiated with local and state agencies and private parties to bring brand name hotels and residential stock to the city.

He has participated in the...