A wedding cupcake contract involves assignment to a substitute pastry chef who performs properly. Which statement best describes the contract status?

• A. Yes, because assignment was permitted and the substitute performed.
• B. No, because assignments cannot be used for personal services contracts.
• C. Yes, but the bakery remains liable for the performance.
• D. No, because the substitute’s performance changes the essential terms.

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that a contract can be fulfilled if the promised performance is delivered by an authorized substitute. When a wedding cupcake contract allows the obligation to be performed by someone else and that substitute actually bakes and delivers proper cupcakes, the promised performance has been satisfied. Because the substitute was permitted and completed the work as required, the contract is discharged—the customer has received what was promised, and no further obligation remains from the baker.

That’s why the other points don’t fit here. It isn’t automatically true that personal service contracts cannot involve substitution; if the contract permits assignment or substitution and the substitute performs, the contract can still end with satisfaction of the promise. Saying the bakery remains liable would imply ongoing liability despite proper performance by the substitute, which isn’t the case when substitution is authorized and completed. And replacing the original chef doesn’t change the essential terms if authorization exists, so there’s no mismatch in terms.