1. Big Biscuit Company (BBC) and D.R. Who Markets (DR Who) enter a twelve-month contract whereby BBC will supply DR Who with 1,000 crates of assorted pastries each week at $300 per crate. BBC is headquartered in London, while DR Who is based in Seattle. For three months, BBC provided the crates of pastries in compliance with contract requirements. At the start of the fourth month, England's Prime Minister placed an indefinite ban on the production of all pastries due to possible food poisonings. While BBC could have continued to provide DR Who with pastries from another source, it would have cost substantially more money. If BBC continued to deliver at $300 per crate, it would lose $150 on each crate it delivered. BBC cancels its contract with DR Who claiming commercial impracticability. DR Who sues BBC in an appropriate federal court. Evaluate the case.

2. Before determining which legal doctrine is used, we first have to cologne the facts of the case. BBC is based in London and D.R. Who is based in Seattle. This means the case would be under federal jurisdiction since the two companies are citizens are from two different countries. When evaluating the case, we must use commercial impracticability as a legal doctrine in determining the possible remedies of this case. why do you agree

3. BBC could reasonably foresee possible food poisoning arising from pastry consumption, it is not foreseeable that the Prime Minister would put in place a nationwide ban on all pastry production. Along with these unforeseen circumstances, BBC must also prove that they would suffer severe hardship due to said circumstances. why do you agree