Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D provides rehabilitation services for alcohol and drug abuse to both adults and adolescents. D entered into negotiations with P for lease of a building. D received a preliminary indication from the City's zoning administrator that its use of P's property constituted a permitted use under the zoning regulations. P and D then entered into a three-year lease. The total rent was $273,000. The City denied D an occupancy permit on the grounds that the operation constituted a nuisance use under the zoning regulations. Alderman Freeman Bosley, Sr. had called the zoning administrator and asked him to reverse his preliminary indication that D's operation constituted a permitted use. D appealed to the board of adjustment. The board affirmed the denial of the permit. D then sought a writ, which was granted by the circuit court, and D was issued an occupancy permit. The City then revoked D's permit. D filed a motion for contempt with the circuit court. The motion was granted, and the City re-issued the occupancy permit. Alderman Bosley was not done. Alderman Bosley asked Representative Carter to 'pull the funding' for D. D was then contacted by Michael Couty, director of the Missouri Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, who threatened to rescind all state contracts if D moved into the new location. The threat was repeated in a conference call. D decided not to move into the building. P sued for breach of the lease. D eventually asserted commercial frustration. The trial court ruled that D was excused from its performance under the lease because of commercial frustration. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.