Metalcrafters made a contract to design a new earth-moving vehicle for Lamar Highway Construction Co. Metalcrafters was depending on the genius of Samet, the head of its research department, to design a new product. Shortly after the contract was made between Metalcrafters and Lamar, Samet was killed in an automobile accident. Metalcrafters was not able to design the product without Samet. Lamar sued Metalcrafters for damages for breach of the contract. Metalcrafters claimed that the contract was discharged by Samet’s death. Is it correct?

Metalcrafters is right by claiming that the contract was discharged. The text makes a list of the impossibilities that allow for a contract to be discharged. “That the occurrence made performance impossible. The doctrine of impossibility relieves nonperformance only in extreme circumstances” (Twomey & Jennings). Samet’s death in the automobile accident qualifies Metalcrafters for the doctrine of impossibility. He was the only one capable of making the product and died unexpectedly.