Judge Frank, are you just opining on what you think the right thing to do here is, or what the result would be if (hypothetically) the buyer didn't pay and Leland's sued? Because if the latter, as I posted,
Closely related to impossibility, frustration of purpose applies when a change in circumstances makes one
party’s contract performance worthless to the other party. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 265.
The defense commonly contains three elements:
1. the party’s principal purpose in making the contract is frustrated;
2. an event occurred whose non-occurrence was a basic assumption underlying the contract; and,
3. the party invoking the defense was not at fault.
All three elements are met, no?
If you think not, would be interested in your reasoning.
__________________
Net 54-- the discussion board where people resent discussions. 
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at
https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/
|