Question about contract validity

[Stella]

It's a hypothetical. What happens to the contract if the manufacturer changes something substantial without the seller or buyer knowing?

Whoops. Just now saw this.   My previous post. Reading it is optional.   

[sugarcrook]

So it turns out the loophole for the manufacturer is something called request of discharge for supervening impracticability, keeping the contract valid. Kinda weird, but here's the relevant part of the UCC:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-615.html

[ducatiz]

So it turns out the loophole for the manufacturer is something called request of discharge for supervening impracticability, keeping the contract valid. Kinda weird, but here's the relevant part of the UCC:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-615.html

I would not read that UCC cite as keeping the contract valid, I read it as not holding the seller of the vehicle liable for breach.

Impracticability usually allows the affected party (in this case, the buyer) to void, but not hold the seller liable for breach.  It's as if the contract never existed. 

No breach isn't the same thing as the contract remaining valid.  Unless there is something else in the fact pattern, if the sales contract specifies the engine type, the buyer will be permitted to void the contract, and no one can be held for damages.

[sugarcrook]

And this is why I never would've made a good lawyer.