Inexcusable? Building An Artificial Intelligence Microexpert On Contract Excuse Doctrine

Mark Edwin Burge

doi:10.2139/ssrn.6314798

journal article Jan 01, 2026

Inexcusable? Building An Artificial Intelligence Microexpert On Contract Excuse Doctrine

Mark Edwin Burge

SSRN Electronic Journal · Elsevier BV

View at Publisher Save 10.2139/ssrn.6314798

Abstract

This article details and advocates for a general methodology for creating a "microexpert" grounded in a user-defined set of legal sources and widelyaccessible tools for integrating generative artificial intelligence (AI) into legal analysis. The study focuses particularly on background contract excuse doctrines of impossibility, impracticability, and frustration of purpose, which are collectively a methodologically challenging area of law to rationalize due to factintensive variables that undermine their predictability. Particular challenges include assessing the foreseeability of the event that led to the contract's nonperformance, the extent of the hardship or burden on the party seeking excuse, and the purpose of the contract that was allegedly frustrated. The study uses Google's popular NotebookLM tool to create an AI microexpert grounded exclusively in a fifteen-year corpus of judicial opinions involving parties' assertions of contractual excuses beyond the express terms of the contract. This source-centric method gives the user maximized control over the body of legal materials while simultaneously mitigating the risk of AI hallucination. The article demonstrates that while this tool does not replace human judgment, it enables legal scholars and practitioners to perform specialized analyses with a depth and scope that are not so efficiently possible if done manually. The study concludes that this method can be replicated in other areas of law, empowering lawyers to create reliable, specialized tools for their work.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

78

[1]

comparing the code-generating strength on Anthropic's Claude with the "full spectrum" general capabilities of Open AI's ChatGPT

[2]

Steven Ang Cheong Seng, ChatGPT Free VS Paid: Do You Need the Premium? (2025)

[3]

Stephanie Chan How Much Does Claude AI Cost?, TACTIQ (2025)

[4]

E G See referring an attorney for grievance proceedings for filing a brief that "includes a citation to a non-existent case, which she admits she generated using the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT" (2024)

[5]

E G See "($3,000 fine for 141. See Ortiz, supra note 140 (reporting Google's February 2025 announcement "that NotebookLM Plus was now available for users through the Google One AI Premium subscription of $19.99 per month, folding in advanced NotebookLM access with Google's other advanced AI offerings for the same price" see also Power your everyday with a Google AI plan, GOOGLE ONE (2025)

[6]

See Upgrade GOOGLE: NOTEBOOK LM HELP

[7]

Ortiz supra note 115; Power your everyday, supra note 141

[8]

E G See (2014)

[9]

E G See aff'd, 521 S.W.3d 766 (2015)

[10]

"The microexpert cites forty sources for this proposition" No. G033413, 2005 WL 827064 (2005)

[11]

Parkhurst V Vaughn FSTCV186034686S, 2019 WL 1601792 (2019)

[12]

F Supp (2006)

[13]

D S Simmons LLC, No. 5:06-CV-363-BR (2008)

[14]

D S Simmons WL (2008)

[15]

Fargo Mgmt "City of Worcester" Mass. Super. Ct. Nov (1028)

[16]

"1, LLC, No. 11 C 2593" WL (2012)

[17]

"The microexpert cites forty-eight sources for this "numerous cases" Dryland Steamboat Rd., LLC v. GRC Realty Corp., No. X05CV094017179S, 2010 WL 4276761 (2010)

[18]

W D Va F. App'x (2019)

[19]

No. CV-05-2459 (CPS) (2006)

[20]

Cal. Ct. App. Apr (2005)

[21]

V Hensley "S-01-2212 FCD DAD" Cal. Sept (2006)

[22]

Id quoting Glenn R. Sewell Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Loverde, 70 Cal. 2d (1969)

[23]

CEJ) (2006)

[24]

Specialty Beverages (1165)

[25]

Kolodin V Valenti Author's Note: The description of Kolodin is problematic because-by including it in the answer to this first inquiry-the AI miscategorizes and oversimplifies the case. The impossibility excuse succeeded in Kolodin, an artist management contract case where the parties also had a domestic relationship. Id. at 199. In a separate Family Court proceeding, the parties had agreed to a stipulated no-contact order that made the artist management contract impossible to perform. Id. at 200. The Kolodin cou (2014)

[26]

No. 04-CV-0751-CVE-SAJ, 2005 WL 8175935 (2005)

[27]

"-cv-1641-Orl-DAB" Lake Buena Vista Resort (2008)

[28]

N D Ga "Author's Note: Although the Elavon case is, by its own terms" Nat'l Ass'n, 841 F.Supp (1298)

[29]

Islip U-Slip LLC, 923 F.Supp.2d 351, 362 (N.D.N.Y. 2013) aff'd, 561 F. App'x (2014)

[30]

E D N Y No. 14-CV-4648 (ARR) (VMS), 2017 WL 11504930 (2017)

[31]

"The AI cites fifty-eight sources for this "recurring theme" Town of Stafford v. Jennings Gen. Contracting, LLC, No. CV176012397S, 2018 WL 4782141 (2005)

[32]

WL (2005)

[33]

App (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS � 265 (2005)

[34]

Bros Conner Const. Co. v. United States, 65 Fed. Cl (2005)

[35]

Rural Devs (2008)

[36]

Llc Gelita (2013)

[37]

F Supp "the economic downfall of 2008 was not a contingency 'the nonoccurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made'") (quoting GA. CODE. ANN. � 11-2-615, the Georgia version of" Nat'l Ass (1298)

[38]

Alcan Forest Prods A-1 Timber Consultants

[39]

E D Mich "Deutsche Solar GmbH, 116 F" aff'd sub nom. Hemlock Semiconductor Operations (2015)

[40]

Jack Kelly Partners LLC v. Zegelstein, 140 A.D.3d 79 (2016)

[41]

*5 (N.D. Ill (2011)

[42]

"The microexpert identified fifteen sources in support of this proposition" aff'd, 170 F. App'x (2005)

[43]

Del. Super. Ct. Sept (2016)

[44]

See Bank of Am (2011)

[45]

E G See Nat'l Ass'n, 841 F.Supp (2011)

[46]

The microexpert identified seventy-one sources in support of this proposition (2009)

[47]

Watkins Dev (2019)

[48]

N Y Tilcon "Author's Note: Interestingly, the facts of a 52.2% cost increase do not from either of the two cases cited in the AI footnote. Rather, the facts came from an older cited cited in common by both authorities" Morris Cnty Coop (1978)

[49]

Dryland Steamboat LLC v. GRC Realty Corp., No. X05CV094017179S (2010)

[50]

Conn "See also Tilcon N.Y., WL 839122, at *19. Author's Note: Once again, the AI has grabbed cite-within-a-cite cases that are based on common references in later cases. Both Dryland Steamboat and Tilcon N.Y. reference some of the famous Suez Canal closure cases that long predate these 2010 and 2014 court opinions. The reasoning is still directionally good law, but the sourcing is one step removed from where it should be in the work of an actual human lawyer" WL 4276761 (2010)

Showing 50 of 78 references

Metrics

0

Citations

78

References

Details

Published: Jan 01, 2026

Authors

M

Mark Edwin Burge

Cite This Article

Mark Edwin Burge (2026). Inexcusable? Building An Artificial Intelligence Microexpert On Contract Excuse Doctrine. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6314798

Inexcusable? Building An Artificial Intelligence Microexpert On Contract Excuse Doctrine

You May Also Like