to argue that, if the venture in the case at bar does not exist, it is impossible to dissolve it, and the agreement for dissolution of the venture is therefore void. Section 74.5 deals with the doctrine of impossibility of performance, under which contractual obligations are sometimes excused because performance would be impossible or impracticable. As an example, the treatise cites Totten v. Houghton, 2 S.W.2d 530, 535 (Tex. App. 1927), which held that a contractual obligation to install “six bookcases 4 feet wide *** between two windows separated by a bare space of 18 inches” was “impossible of performance.” Several other examples of impossibility or impracticability of performance are included in section 74.5. E.g., Whelan v. Griffith Consumers Co., 170 A.2d 229, 230 (D.C. 1961) (<HOLDING>). However, none of these examples appears to
holding that an insurer was obligated to pay for damages and a loss in value to a water treatment plant caused by the insureds defective product holding that an oil delivery company was not liable in damages for the freezing of a farmhouse heating plant where the companys failure to deliver fuel oil was caused by deep snowdrifts making delivery impracticable without extreme or unreasonable difficulty or expense holding title company liable for bad faith holding that there was no fourth amendment seizure where delivery of package was not delayed because it is the extent of the interference with the defendants possessory interest in the property that determines whether a seizure has occurred holding that delay caused by or consented to by a defendant is not unreasonable