Gill, a wholesale fish seller, agreed to provide Blanchet's Restaurant with 1000 kilograms of fresh salmon per week throughout the months of July, August, and September. Things went as planned for July and August. However, Gill was unable to meet the requirements of the contract for the first two weeks of September because his boats simply did not catch enough, although other companies did better and the fish were available for Gill to purchase, but at a higher price than what Blanchet was paying him. Rather than sell at a loss, Gill simply did not supply during that two-week period. At the end of that period, the Federal Fisheries Department shut down the fishery altogether because of the depletion of fish. After that, no more fresh salmon was available at all. Blanchet sued Gill for breach of contract with respect to his failure to deliver any fresh salmon in September. Which one of the following statements accurately sets out the legal situation here?
◦ Gill is liable for breach of contract with respect to the first two weeks of September, but the second two weeks' failure was caused by frustration for which he was not responsible.
◦ The doctrine of frustration does not apply here because this is a sale-of-goods situation.
◦ By not suing Gill as soon as he failed to deliver in the first two weeks of September, Blanchet lost the right to complain, and then the subsequent governmental closure excused Gill's failure to deliver any fish in September.
◦ The contract was frustrated for the whole month of September by Gill's inability to obtain fish in the way that he had intended, and thus he is not liable at all.
◦ Gill was under a strict obligation to supply the fish and no excuses for failure are allowed.
Osmoregulation by marine fish and saltwater mosquitoes.
Fish teeth
Transparent Amazonian Fish
Fish
fish
Fish and Chips or Fries