11. Upon learning this, the manager can legally pursue which of the following courses of action with respect to his contract with the breeder?

C is correct. A contract may be rescinded on grounds of supervening impracticability where a party's performance is made impracticable without his fault due to the occurrence of an event, the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made. Such event may include the destruction or deterioration of a specific thing necessary for the performance of a duty or the necessity to comply with a governmental order. Because the breeder undertook to exhibit his world champion animal (and not any other hog), the animal's availability for the exhibition is a basic assumption of the contract. The animal's illness, which requires him to be quarantined for a month under state law, renders the breeder's performance impracticable. Therefore the manager should treat both parties' obligations under the contract as discharged.

A is incorrect. The hog's illness excuses the breeder's obligation, so the manager cannot demand assurances.

B is incorrect. The animal's illness provides a basis for the excuse of the breeder's obligation. Specifically, as explained above, the breeder is not obligated to provide a substitute hog because the contract only contemplated exhibiting the champion animal.

D is incorrect. Under his contract with the breeder, the manager does not have a duty to provide a substitute hog for the exhibition.