A coffee shop owner hires an eccentric artist to decorate the shop. The artist sells her decorating business and delegates contracts to a graduate. If the coffee shop owner refuses to accept performance by the graduate, is the owner liable for breach?

• A. Yes, because the duty involves the artist's taste and skill which cannot be delegated.
• B. No, because the owner can refuse assignment to the degree that the other party's performance is not personal.
• C. Yes, because the delegate lacks license.
• D. No, because the graduate has assumed all obligations.

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that personal services—the artist’s decorating work done in her own taste and judgment—are non-delegable. When a contract calls for a person’s unique skill or aesthetic, that duty generally can’t be handed off to someone else without the other party’s consent.

Here, the artist tries to delegate the contracts to a graduate. Because the work relies on the artist’s personal style, the coffee shop owner has a right to reject the substitute. If the owner refuses the graduate’s performance, that refusal does not make the owner liable for breach. Instead, the artist would be the one in breach for attempting to substitute someone lacking the required personal performance. The graduate has not assumed the obligations of the contract unless there is a valid novation, and issues like licensing aren’t the controlling factor here.

So the appropriate understanding is that the owner isn’t liable for breach when refusing a substitute for a personal-service task; the artist remains responsible for failing to provide the required personal performance.