Discussion Post
I. A contract is considered frustrated only in very unusual situations. Should the doctrine of frustration be applied more often? Would a broader application produce fairer results? What is the downside of such a change in commercial contracts?
II. Breach of a condition can signify the end of the contract, while breach of warranty does not. Should courts be allowed to exercise discretionary power in determining whether an innominate term should have this same result? What should parties do if they want to reduce the uncertainty as to how a given term will be classi?ed?
III. The privity rule is one of the basic elements of contract law. Is it too restrictive? On the other hand, is there a danger in creating too many exceptions to the rule?
IV. Contract law is intended to facilitate commercial activities and enable businesses to conduct their affairs so that their legal obligations are certain. Do you think, after considering the material in the last ?ve chapters, that contract law achieves its goals? Can you think of ways to improve the effectiveness of contract law?
V. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that mental distress damages for breach of contract can be awarded when an object of the contract was to secure a psychological bene?t. What kinds of contracts can you think of that promise a psychological bene?t?
The response should include a reference list. Using double-space, Times New Roman 12 pnt font, one-inch margins, and APA style of writing and citations.