1. In its decision, the district court cited newspaper articles that discussed the volatility of the economy and specifically the real estate market. Do these articles act in any way to support or defeat Krivoruchko’s claim?

2. Should a defense of commercial impracticability be effective under circumstances in which prices are affected by changes in the local or national economy? Explain.

3. How might Krivoruchko have protected himself under this contract?

4. How might Ner Tamid Congregation of North Town have protected itself under this contract?

In 2007, real estate developer Igor Krivoruchko contracted with Ner Tamid Congregation of North Town, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation, to purchase property Ner Tamid owned on Rosemont Avenue in Chicago. After postponing the closing once, Krivoruchko refused to go forward with the deal because he said he could not obtain the kind of financing he hoped to get. The purchase contract contained no financing contingency clause because, believing he was “creditworthy” and had not had problems in the past with the lender with which he was dealing, Krivoruchko did not desire one. Ner Tamid sued for breach of contract, and Krivoruchko defended, in part claiming commercial impracticability because he could not obtain the financing he wanted due to an “unanticipated” and “unforeseeable” downturn in the economy.