A signs a contract for snow skiing lessons and the contract

A signs a contract for snow skiing lessons, and the contract reads that it is “noncancelable” and that “no refunds will be made under the terms of the contract.” The ski lodge informs A that A has a “great potential to become a worldclass skier,” and consequently, A signs further contracts with the ski lodge for ski lessons. As time progresses, A spends $7,500 on ski lessons and has signed contracts, containing the language mentioned above, and paid $12,000 for future ski lessons. A is hit by a fastmoving snowmobile and is injured to the extent that skiing is no longer possible. A seeks return on the $12,000 paid for ski lessons that A will not be able to take. The ski lodge says that this is a risk that A assumed in signing the contracts and paying in advance and furthermore will not give a refund because of the terms of the contract. A sues the ski lodge. Who wins? Does the doctrine of impossibility apply? Should the court imply a condition of “good health” into the contract for the ski lessons?

Solution

In the given case contract term is non cancellable and no refund will be under the terms of the contract, Further as per given facts it seems that A wants to further take the lesson but due to giving accident (A is hit by fast moving snowmobile and is injured to the extent that skiing is no longer possible). Generally in all the contracts there are a clause namely \'force majure\'. Under that clause if either party is not able to perform the contracts due to uncontrollable reasons (reasons are beyond the control and it is not possible to carry the contracts even if they want to perform the contract) then both the parties will be treated free from their future performance.

If we analysis the above case and assumed that there is above said clause in the contract then the money should be refunded to A.

If we assumed that there is no such clause in the contract even in that case court should take care terms of contract as well as who is the party in default. In the given case no party is in default but the contract is not performable due to uncontrroable reason, therefore court should take care of doctrine of impossibility and decision should be in favour of A.