Could Arthur Murray have created language that would have avoided the application of impossibility of performance? What

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Question:

Could Arthur Murray have created language that would have avoided the application of impossibility of performance? What if Parker was not incapac-itated but that it was simply painful to dance after the accident, would the doctrine of impossi-bility of performance apply? Explain your answer. In addition to the questions presented by the author for analysis, consider whether Parker would have a claim for relief under the doctrine of Impracticability of Performance if it was too painful for him to continue to dance after the accident.

In Parker v. Arthur Murray, Inc., 10 Ill. App. 3d 1000, 295 N.E.2d 487 (1973), the doctrine of impossibility was applied where the plaintiff, Parker, contracted with the Arthur Murray Dance studio for lessons. After his initial lessons, Parker decided to continue and signed a contract for 75 hours of lessons at a cost of $1,000. At the bottom of the contract in bold print were the words "NON-CANCELLABLE NEGOTIABLE CONTRACT." Parker continued his lessons and signed additional contracts containing the same language. Some of the contracts had addi-tional language, which stated in boldfaced print, "I UNDERSTAND THAT NO REFUNDS WILL BE MADE UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT." Parker was severely injured in a car accident. Of course, he was unable to dance and continue his lessons. Apparently, Parker had signed up for a total of 2,734 hours of lessons at a cost of $24,812.80. (Have to wonder about this one!) When Parker could not perform because of his accident, he requested the return of his money. The dance studio refused citing the boldfaced language in the contracts. The Illinois court cited the Restatement of Contracts doctrine of impossibility of performance, which it adopted. The dance studio argued that the language of the contract waived Parker's rights to sue Arthur Murray under any legal theory. The court found that argument unpersuasive and unacceptable finding that they believed that Parker had never intended to waive a right expressly recognized by Illinois courts. Therefore, the court allowed the contract to be rescinded.