Leo and Elizabeth were getting married and planned a wedding reception for 150 people. They entered a contract with Snuffy's, a banquet hall, to hold the reception between 6:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. on Saturday, August 3. The total contract price was $10,578, all of which was to be paid in advance. The contract contained a force majeure clause, which stated: "Snuffy's will be excused from performance under this contract if it is prevented from doing so by an act of God, or other unforeseen events or circumstances."

On August 3, less than 45 minutes after the reception began, there was a power failure in the area where Snuffy's is located. The power failure caused all the lights, except emergency lights, to go out and the air conditioning system to shut off. The temperature was in the upper 80s or low 90s and the humidity was high. In addition, the band Leo and Elizabeth had hired for the reception refused to play without lights or the electricity required to operate their instruments, and the lack of lighting impeded the wedding photographer and videographer from taking pictures.

When it became evident that electricity would not be restored quickly, Snuffy's manager offered to reschedule the reception. However, many of the guests had traveled a substantial distance to attend the wedding and would not have been able to return on another date. Therefore, Leo and Elizabeth declined the offer. Shortly after 9:00 p.m., there was an altercation between one of the guests and a Snuffy's employee. As a result, the banquet hall called the police, who arrived around 9:30 p.m. By this time, the batteries operating the emergency lights had begun to run out of power, and the only illumination was provided by candelabras on the tables. Therefore, Snuffy's manager asked the police to evacuate the facility.

Leo and Elizabeth subsequently brought a breach of contract action seeking recovery of the $10,578 they prepaid for the wedding reception plus the $6,000 paid to the band, $3,810 paid to the wedding photographer, and $3,242.09 paid to the videographer. Snuffy's asserts that the force majeure clause relieved it of its duty to perform the contract. In the alternative, Snuffy's pleads the defenses of impossibility and impracticability. If you were the judge in a bench trial (without a jury) how would you rule on Snuffy's two arguments? If the contract is rescinded, what happens to the consideration Leo and Elizabeth paid?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Answer As the judge in a bench trial I would evaluate Snuffys arguments based on the facts presented and the relevant legal principles Force Majeure Clause Snuffys argues that the force majeure clause ... View the full answer