In early 2019, the anonymous street artist Invader (https://www.space-invaders.com/home/) contracted with the MAMO art gallery in Marseilles, France for an installation and sale of his work during the Spring of 2020. Over a month, the installation would involve Invader, masked to conceal his identity, preparing roughly 100 mosaics during the day in a windowed workshop where patrons could observe his craft. By night, Invader would descend upon the city of Marseilles to 'vandalize' the city with his mosaics. The items to be sold would be the direct result of his time spent at the MAMO creating his art. In the past, Invader mosaics have sold between $40,000 to $400,000, the real payoff of the month-long residency. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic and the stipulations of quarantine, Invader was unimpeded from sequestering himself to create his work, granted to a non-existent audience. Even by night, the requirements of quarantine facilitated easy access to an empty city to fix his mosaics to. (https://space-invaders.com/world/marseille/) Upon completion of his residence, Invader provided a variety of pieces for sale. While Invader was unencumbered by the pandemic, the MAMO experienced a different story. The small staff had seen tragedy and the art scene of the south of France was reluctant to return. 

Given the state of the world, the MAMO sought to move their gallery showing and sale of Invader's work to an online sale. Invader claims breach of contract in that a virtual event could not possibly match the prestige, attention, and commercial success of an in-person event. Even the work itself was never intended to be seen on a screen, but experienced in the real world. Invader seeks damages for the cost of assembling his mosaics, his month-long commitment to the MAMO, and loss of revenue. The MAMO seeks to enforce the standard force majeure clause of their contract. In addressing the prompts, disregard the obvious issue of international law and jurisdiction, and apply the contract law of the state of your choice. 

1. Before entertaining the force majeure clause, how would a common law application of impracticability and frustration of purpose result? Case law could be valuable. 

2. Can the MAMO enforce the force majeure clause to include a pandemic? What will be the result? 

3. What theories of recovery and damages are available to both parties? Consider unjust enrichment and detrimental reliance in light of a half full-filled contract. 

4. What sort of legal advice and contract drafting suggestions would you make to ensure this sort of problem does not occur in the future?