Scribd Logo
Cargar

¡Te damos la bienvenida a Scribd!

  • Dills v. Towns of Enfield

    Cargado por

    crlstinaaa
    586 vistas1 página
    Trial court reverses in favor of the seller of a construction project. The condition that the contractor had to submit plans was not impracticable. A condition that was independent of the contractor's getting financing was valid. If a condition was impracticable, it doesn't invalidate the entire contract.

    Descripción original:

    Derechos de autor

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formatos disponibles

    TXT, PDF, TXT o lea en línea desde Scribd

    ¿Le pareció útil este documento?

    ¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

    Denunciar este documento
    Trial court reverses in favor of the seller of a construction project. The condition that the contractor had to submit plans was not impracticable. A condition that was independent of the contractor's getting financing was valid. If a condition was impracticable, it doesn't invalidate the entire contract.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Descargue como TXT, PDF, TXT o lea en línea desde Scribd
    Marcar por contenido inapropiado
    586 vistas1 página

    Dills v. Towns of Enfield

    Cargado por

    crlstinaaa
    Trial court reverses in favor of the seller of a construction project. The condition that the contractor had to submit plans was not impracticable. A condition that was independent of the contractor's getting financing was valid. If a condition was impracticable, it doesn't invalidate the entire contract.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Descargue como TXT, PDF, TXT o lea en línea desde Scribd
    Marcar por contenido inapropiado
    de 1

    Supervening Impracticability

    Case: Dills v. Towns of Enfield (1989, CT) [pp. 821-827]

    Facts: D agrees to sell land to P on 2 conditions: (1) submission and approval


    of construction plans, and (2) financing. P only submits preliminary plans, and
    is eventually unable to obtain mortgage financing. Since they couldn’t get the
    financing, they don’t submit the construction plans. D considers this a breach,
    and keeps the deposit. P sues to recover the deposit. Referee finds for P.

    Issue: Does failure to perform part of a contract excuse performance of other


    terms? No.

    Holding: Trial court reverses for D.

    Reasoning:
    o Impracticability doesn’t apply. Was no impracticability in the planning or
    submitting-just in the financing.
    o The conditions of impracticability must be unforeseen; the P knew of the
    possibility of not being able to find funding.
    o The nonoccurrence was not a basic assumption of the contract.

    RULE: The Doctrine of Impossibility does not invalidate an entire contract.

    Notes
    d. Dependant v independent condition
    e. K was supposed to go out and get financing. In any event, contractor was
    supposed to turn over a set of plans, independent of his getting financing. Court
    said there's a positive obligation.

    También podría gustarte