06.09.2021 Views

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

caused to communications and transportation in the City of New York and the actions<br />

of government in declaring and en<strong>for</strong>cing a state of emergency in the city and beyond.<br />

Accordingly, the motion of defendants ProTravel and Micato <strong>for</strong> summary<br />

judgment dismissing this action is denied in its entirety.<br />

_____________________<br />

Review Question 3. Why was impossibility (or impracticability) a viable<br />

defense to failure to per<strong>for</strong>m the contract in Bush v. ProTravel while the defense<br />

failed in Karl Wendt Farm Equipment? The amount at stake in the farm equipment<br />

case seems to be much more than was at issue in the safari honeymoon case. If the<br />

amount of money at stake is not determinative, then what exactly does explain the<br />

divergent results in the two cases?<br />

Review Question 4. The Bush court characterizes the defendants’ argument<br />

as being “that all of the horror, heartbreak and hurdles <strong>for</strong> communications and<br />

commerce visited on Alexandra Bush and all New Yorkers in the aftermath of<br />

September 11th” do not matter because “a contract is a contract.” Should events as<br />

extreme and unanticipated as those of 9/11 provide an all-purpose contract excuse?<br />

Why or why not? Weren’t there lots of outstanding contractual obligations involving<br />

New Yorkers as of that date? Consider the next case when answering this question.<br />

_____________________<br />

U.S. BANCORP EQUIPMENT FINANCE, INC.<br />

v. AMERIQUEST HOLDINGS LLC<br />

United States District Court <strong>for</strong> the District of Minnesota<br />

2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24709, 55 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 423 (2004)<br />

ANN D. MONTGOMERY, U.S.D.J.<br />

In 1999, Brad Gupta <strong>for</strong>med Ameriquest Holdings LLC. Gupta and his brotherin-law<br />

are the sole shareholders of Ameriquest. In July 2000, Ameriquest purchased<br />

a Boeing 737 from Bank of America Leasing and Capital. At the time of purchase, the<br />

plane was leased to U.S. Airways under a lease scheduled to expire in April 2003. 5 In<br />

5 [For tax, flexibility, and other reasons, airlines frequently choose not to own their planes, but<br />

instead to lease them. Since aircraft manufacturers like Boeing prefer to sell, not lease, their planes,<br />

third party lessors like Ameriquest, Bank of America Capital and GATX, buy planes and lease them<br />

to airlines. The aircraft buyer/lessor profits from the difference between the lease payments it receives<br />

from the airline and its loan payments to the lender who financed the purchase. In this case, it appears<br />

that Bank of America and GATX wanted to sell their aircraft be<strong>for</strong>e the termination of the U.S.<br />

Airways and Continental leases, so that someone else would have to worry about re-leasing the used<br />

______________________________________________________________________________<br />

468 CHAPTER VII: PERFORMANCE AND BREACH

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!