Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Dills (P) sued D to recover a $100,000 deposit. D instructed its development agency to solicit private developers for the Enfield Memorial Industrial Park. P and D entered into a contract for the sale of the town land to be developed. P gave D a deposit of $100,000 toward the contract price of $985,900. D agreed to convey the property to P 60 days after submission and approval of plans and submission of evidence of financial capacity according to the terms of the contract. The contract allowed the developer to withdraw and to reclaim his deposit if after preparation of the development plans he was not able to get financing. Another section of the contract allowed D to retain the deposit if the plans were not submitted. Preliminary plans were submitted, but they were deemed by the referee to be incomplete. P claimed that because he was unable to obtain the necessary mortgage financing that the submission of the plans he should be allowed to terminate under the section of the contract for refunding his deposit. The referee found that P's duty to submit the plans was discharged by supervening impracticability. A referee recommended that judgment be given P. The trial court rejected that conclusion and gave judgment to D in that there was no impracticability in submitting plans under that termination provision. P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co