A breach of contract judgment against a consultant is least likely to succeed due to which type of legal argument?

The correct answer is based on the principle that certain unforeseen events, commonly referred to as acts of God, can absolve parties from liability in a breach of contract situation. Acts of God are generally natural events outside of human control, such as earthquakes, floods, or hurricanes, that can impede performance of contractual obligations.

In the context of a breach of contract, if a consultant can demonstrate that an act of God directly caused them to fail in fulfilling their contractual duties, they may argue that this serves as a valid defense against the breach claim. This is particularly relevant because contracts typically have provisions that address unforeseen events, potentially shifting liability away from the consultant.

The other options touch on various contract principles or scenarios but do not provide the same level of plausible defense against a breach of contract claim. For instance, mutual assent clauses establish the foundation of the contract but don’t serve as a defense if a breach occurs. Similarly, while showing negligence on the owner's part may complicate matters, it does not negate the breach itself. Finally, having clearly defined costs written in the contract pertains to clarity in financial matters, which is less related to the concept of liability due to unforeseen events like acts of God.