An owner hires a man to be captain of a ferry for the upcoming season. The owner later hires a woman as captain. The man becomes ill and cannot work that season. The owner hires the woman to serve the season and tells the man not to worry. The man sues for breach. Will he succeed?

• A. Yes, because there was a valid contract for the season.
• B. No, because the man was unable to serve during the summer months.
• C. Yes, because the owner breached by replacing him.
• D. No, because the owner had a right to replace with a qualified substitute.

Answer: (B)

Impossibility of performance in a personal-services contract is the key idea. When a contract calls for the services of a specific person, and that person becomes unable to perform for the needed period (here, the entire season due to illness), the contract is discharged. The owner’s decision to hire a different captain and tell the original captain there’s no worry shows there was no breach—the essential performance by the original party simply isn’t possible for the season. Replacing with a substitute is consistent with discharge by impossibility, not a breach by the owner. The other choices would imply the contract remains enforceable or that substitution itself constitutes a breach, which isn’t the correct view when illness makes personal performance impossible.