Julie was told by ComputerLand that if she would purchase ten or more Zip cartridges, she would receive a free cartridge carrying case in the mail. However, shortly thereafter, the supplier of such carrying cases went out of business and could no longer fill orders. Then Julie sued ComputerLand, who used "frustration" in its defense. Which of the following is true?
A) Since Julie did not specify the source, the agreement is not frustrated.
B) Iomega, the manufacture of Zip drives and cartridges, would be liable.
C) Frustration is impossible because it is too late for rescission.
D) Since the source is destroyed, the agreement is frustrated.
E) Since the carrying case is free, this agreement lacks consideration.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The defense of frustration applies when an unforeseen event undermines a party's principal purpose for entering into a contract. However, since Julie did not specify the source of the carrying cases, the agreement is not frustrated simply because the supplier went out of business.

Julie Was Told by ComputerLand That If She Would Purchase