Answer all questions (located on the bottom of each page) FACTS: Parker v Arthur Murray Dance Studios,

Answer all questions (located on the bottom of each page)

Transcribed Image Text:

FACTS: Parker v Arthur Murray Dance Studios, Inc. Appellate Court of Illinois 1973 In 1959, Ryland Parker was a 37-year-old college educated bachelor. He lived alone in a one-room attic apartment and had received and redeemed a certificate to for three free dance lessons from Arthur Murray dance studios. The instructor told him during the free lessons that he had "exceptional potential to be a fine and accomplished dancer!" Parker thereupon signed a contract for more lessons. He continued his lessons and was praised by his instructors despite his lack of progress. He made extensions for his contract and each extension contained in bold type the following words: "NONCANCELABLE CONTRACT AND I UNDERSTAND THAT NO REFUNDS WILL BE MADE UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT!" Mr. Parker eventually signed up for 2,734 lessons for which he prepaid $24,812! Mr. Parker was subsequently injured in an automobile accident, which rendered him unable to continue his dance lessons. Therefore, he sought to rescind the contract. The studio refused to refund any of his money based on the fact that the terms of the contract were agreed upon and could not be canceled or any of the monies refunded. ISSUES: Does the doctrine of impossibility apply here? Should the contract be rescinded? DECISIONS: Yes, Yes OPINION: The Appellate Court held that the doctrine of impossibility is recognized as grounds for rescission of a contract. The studio's claim that the clause was specifically entered into and agreed upon by the parties to prevent the doctrine of impossibility from being applied. Furthermore, there is no way Mr. Parker could have anticipated this would or could happen and not to excuse him from the contract, would be grossly unfair to him. The duty to perform exists in every contract as agreed but certain circumstances must be considered and here it is clear that this duty is not possible. QUESTIONS TO ANSWER: Do you agree with the decision of the court? Did Arthur Murray act ethically? What other grounds would constitute impossibility of performance? What is meant by the "duty to perform?" Do contracts still contain these terms today? Why do you think Mr. Parker agreed to these terms of the contract? 45 FACTS: Parker v Arthur Murray Dance Studios, Inc. Appellate Court of Illinois 1973 In 1959, Ryland Parker was a 37-year-old college educated bachelor. He lived alone in a one-room attic apartment and had received and redeemed a certificate to for three free dance lessons from Arthur Murray dance studios. The instructor told him during the free lessons that he had "exceptional potential to be a fine and accomplished dancer!" Parker thereupon signed a contract for more lessons. He continued his lessons and was praised by his instructors despite his lack of progress. He made extensions for his contract and each extension contained in bold type the following words: "NONCANCELABLE CONTRACT AND I UNDERSTAND THAT NO REFUNDS WILL BE MADE UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT!" Mr. Parker eventually signed up for 2,734 lessons for which he prepaid $24,812! Mr. Parker was subsequently injured in an automobile accident, which rendered him unable to continue his dance lessons. Therefore, he sought to rescind the contract. The studio refused to refund any of his money based on the fact that the terms of the contract were agreed upon and could not be canceled or any of the monies refunded. ISSUES: Does the doctrine of impossibility apply here? Should the contract be rescinded? DECISIONS: Yes, Yes OPINION: The Appellate Court held that the doctrine of impossibility is recognized as grounds for rescission of a contract. The studio's claim that the clause was specifically entered into and agreed upon by the parties to prevent the doctrine of impossibility from being applied. Furthermore, there is no way Mr. Parker could have anticipated this would or could happen and not to excuse him from the contract, would be grossly unfair to him. The duty to perform exists in every contract as agreed but certain circumstances must be considered and here it is clear that this duty is not possible. QUESTIONS TO ANSWER: Do you agree with the decision of the court? Did Arthur Murray act ethically? What other grounds would constitute impossibility of performance? What is meant by the "duty to perform?" Do contracts still contain these terms today? Why do you think Mr. Parker agreed to these terms of the contract? 45