Foodmart Inc.
Foodmart will win the suit against Masterpiece for breach of contract and specific performance. This is because under the law of contract, it a general rule that only the parties to a contract: the promisor and the promise are responsible for the contract duties and any rights emerging from the contract. The only exceptions that could be applicable in this case is the Assignment (of Rights), an arrangement whereby an oblige shifts his rights to another party or whereby the obligee may shift the duties of the contract to a third party and free themselves of the performance of the contract like what Masterpiece did in subtracting Build Them to Fall Construction to accomplish the terms of the contract (Larson, 2010).
Despite the sub-contraction of a third party to accomplish the contract terms, the delegator remains responsible for his contract duties should the delegate fail to accomplish them. The masterpiece was thus responsible for the failure of Build Them to Fall Construction to complete the contract. In addition, Masterpiece had not informed Foodmart that the contract had been delegated. Although consent to delegation is not required unless the contract specifies, Masterpiece did not consider the language of the contract in delegating the duties of the contract (Larson, 2010).
Breach of contract
Foodmart will win the case against Masterpiece for breach of the contract since masterpiece did not perform their duties as per the contract specifications. Another basis for Foodmart is the fact that Masterpiece made it clear that they had no intentions of accomplishing the contract duties by stating that they had the right to discharge the contract as a result of commercial impracticability (Randy, 2003).
Specific performance
Foodmart will still win against Masterpiece for specific performance. Commercial impracticability is not one of the exceptional circumstances where a specific performance would be denied. The masterpiece was only overwhelmed by the number of contracts and commercial impracticability was not a justified cause for failure to honor the terms of the contracts (McKendrick, 2005).
