Eugster & Co. v. Joseph West & Co.
35 La. Ann. 119 (1883)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party is not excused from contractual liability for non-performance due to a 'fortuitous event' if that event was foreseeable and the party was at fault for failing to perform when it was possible to do so before the event occurred.
Facts:
- On December 14, 1878, Eugster & Co. purchased 50,000 bushels of corn from the defendants.
- The contract required the defendants to ship the corn from the Ohio River within twenty days (by January 3, 1879) for delivery alongside the ship Minnie Irwin in New Orleans.
- Eugster & Co. had chartered the Minnie Irwin to transport the corn to Europe.
- Around December 20, Eugster & Co. warned the defendants about the risk of the river freezing and urged them to ship the corn promptly.
- For eleven days after the contract was made, the Ohio River was navigable and unobstructed, but the defendants made no effort to ship the corn.
- On December 25, 1878, the Ohio River froze, suspending all navigation until approximately January 25, 1879.
- The corn was not delivered in New Orleans until February 8, 1879, causing Eugster & Co. to incur $2,928 in demurrage fees for the delayed ship.
Procedural Posture:
- Eugster & Co. (plaintiffs) filed suit against the defendants in a Louisiana trial court to recover demurrage charges incurred due to the defendants' failure to deliver corn on time.
- The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Eugster & Co.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a foreseeable 'fortuitous event,' such as the freezing of a river in winter, excuse a party's non-performance of a contract when that party implicitly assumed the risk of the event and failed to take timely action to perform before the event occurred?
Opinions:
Majority - Manning, J.
No. A party's non-performance is not excused by a fortuitous event if the party assumed the risk of that event or was at fault. The Louisiana Civil Code provides two exceptions to the rule that a fortuitous event excuses performance: 1) when the party has expressly or impliedly undertaken the risk, and 2) when the event was preceded by some fault of the debtor. Here, both exceptions apply. First, the freezing of the Ohio River in mid-winter is a probable and foreseeable event, so the defendants implicitly assumed that risk by contracting for performance during that season. Second, the defendants were at fault because they had eleven days of unobstructed navigation to ship the corn but neglected to do so. This fault preceded the freeze and was a cause of the failure to perform on time. Therefore, the defendants are liable for the damages resulting from their delay.
Analysis:
This decision refines the 'act of God' or 'fortuitous event' defense in contract law, particularly under the Louisiana Civil Code. It establishes that foreseeability is a critical factor; a party cannot be excused by a predictable, seasonal event that they should have anticipated. The ruling underscores a duty of diligence, holding that a party's failure to perform when they have the opportunity can constitute a 'fault' that negates the defense. This precedent narrows the applicability of the fortuitous event excuse, requiring contracting parties to actively mitigate foreseeable risks rather than waiting until the last minute to perform their obligations.
