Breach_of_Contract

In this case Teleflex offered to supply the necessary parts I.M.P needed to help the Brazilian government carry out a program for its Tracker aircraft fleet. They made a schedule for when the components were to be shipped. They also agreed that I.M.P could order a suspension of the work with a reasonable price adjustment, and a further provision whereby I.M.P. could terminate the order with payment to Teleflex for both competed and uncompleted work. Teleflex then began to make the units. Teleflex then got notices from I.M.P requesting to postpone the delivery of the units. I.M.P. couldn’t close the deal with the Brazilian government. I.M.P indicated that they would not be requiring the purchase order. I think that this is self-induced frustration and not simply frustration. I.M.P. wasn’t sure if the contract with the Brazilian government would go through or not. I.M.P should be responsible for the misfortune and the refusal of the Brazilian government should not provide an excuse for Teleflex to perform the contract unless it was stated in the contract. I.M.P anticipated the frustrating event and provided Teleflex to endure the risk of the possibility that the deal could not go through. It is only when the event is an unforeseen interference, not caused by either party, that the courts are willing to find frustration. I believe that I.M.P should pay Teleflex but with a reasonable price adjustment as agreed upon in their contract.