Stonerose arguments prevail here and Jordan could have probably foreseen such a ban. The court will probably follow the same analogy as Brooks in deciding that the ban was foreseeable because it was due to conditions normally to be expected. Further, Jordan’s argument that entering into the lease proves his un-foreseeability is invalid. And if the court submitted itself to its subjective test, there would be no place to avert the application of any force majeure provision. Since all what it would take from a party to satisfy the un-foreseeability condition would be to claim that it entered into the contract. Moreover, the argument that Stonerose entered into the lease despite the tweet may constitute an estoppel which is irrelevant to force majeure. Lastly, foreseeability does not require certainty, a tweet made by an impulsive mayor is enough to make the ban foreseeable for a reasonably diligent Pit Bull breeder. Therefore, Jordan’s argument is a far cry from any valid argument and the ban was foreseeable to him.
B) The event must be beyond the party’s control: The Court of Appeals held that a party may excuse itself from …show more content…
Further, the ban applies to him since the American Pit Bull Terrier he is breeding falls under section 1(b). Further, he does not qualify as “a current owner of Pit Bulls” since he only breeds, train, and board pit bulls owned by customers. Lastly, his business’s sole purpose requires “exercising control” over Pit Bulls which Section 1(a) forbids. To illustrate his point, he may rely on Specialty Foods to prove that the Pit Bull ban affected him the same way the relocation of the Hall of Fame affected Specialty Foods. While the latter leased the space for the sole purpose of serving food, Jordan’s sole purpose was to breed, board, and train Pit