Question

An American helicopter manufacturer contracted with a foreign hospital located in a severely war-torn region to sell five helicopters specially outfitted for medical use. The helicopter manufacturer, in turn, contracted with a subcontractor to provide five flight systems for use in the helicopters. The subcontractor was not informed about the contract between the helicopter manufacturer and the foreign hospital, nor the location where the helicopters would be used. After the two contracts were formed, the country in which the hospital was located descended deeply into civil war. The United Nations imposed an embargo against all shipments to that country. The helicopter manufacturer directed the subcontractor to stop all work on the contract, and to place any completed systems into storage. At that point, the subcontractor had finished three of the five flight systems called for by the subcontract. The systems were custom-built, and could not be used for any other purpose. The subcontractor sued the helicopter manufacturer for breach of contract. Is the subcontractor likely to prevail

Answer 1

Answer: Yes, because the helicopter manufacturer assumed the risk of the failure of the contract.

Explanation:

Based on the scenario given in the question, the subcontractor will likely prevail because the helicopter manufacturer assumed the risk of the failure of the contract.

Here, when the helicopter manufacturer entered into the contract with the subcontractor, the manufacturer was aware that the helicopters will be used in the "severely war-torn region.

In this case, the subcontractor wasn't aware of the information that the manufacturer knew of and therefore wasn't able to determine the risk that was involved in the contract.