BUSH v. PROTRAVEL INTL. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A woman canceled her safari honeymoon after the 9/11 attacks but missed the contract’s refund deadline. She argued the attacks made timely communication impossible. The court denied the travel company’s summary judgment motion, finding a triable issue of fact under the doctrine of impossibility of performance.
Legal Significance: This case illustrates the application of the impossibility doctrine to a major public crisis. It establishes that a supervening event, like a terrorist attack, can create a temporary impossibility that may excuse or suspend a party’s contractual duty to provide timely notice.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Alexandra Bush booked a safari honeymoon through defendant ProTravel with defendant Micato Safaris, paying a 20% deposit. The contract’s cancellation policy stipulated a minimal fee for cancellations made more than 60 days before departure (on or before September 14, 2001) but required forfeiture of the 20% deposit for cancellations made between 30 and 60 days prior. The safari was scheduled for November 14, 2001. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks occurred 64 days before departure. Bush decided to cancel immediately but alleged that the ensuing breakdown in communications and transportation between her location and the travel agent’s Manhattan office made it impossible to notify them. She successfully communicated her cancellation on September 27, which fell within the 30-60 day window triggering the deposit forfeiture. The defendants refused to refund her deposit, citing the contract’s terms, and moved for summary judgment. Bush countered that the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath constituted an event that made her timely performance—cancellation by September 14—objectively impossible.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a party’s inability to communicate a timely contract cancellation due to the widespread disruption caused by a major terrorist attack raise a triable issue of fact under the doctrine of impossibility of performance?
Yes. The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex e
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a party’s inability to communicate a timely contract cancellation due to the widespread disruption caused by a major terrorist attack raise a triable issue of fact under the doctrine of impossibility of performance?
Conclusion
The case serves as a modern precedent for applying the doctrines of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in vol
Legal Rule
While a party must generally perform a contract despite unforeseen burdens, performance Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehender
Legal Analysis
The court analyzed the defendants' summary judgment motion through the lens of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehend
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The court denied summary judgment for a travel company that withheld