Dills v. Enfield

Enfield contracted with Dills. Dills agreed to buy property for $1,000,000 with a $100,000 deposit.

Dills was supposed to get mortgage financing to complete the $1 million construction project for the town of Enfield.

Enfield rejected the preliminary construction plan of Dills.

Dills failed to secure the $1 million financed despite trying.

Enfield wanted to terminate the contract and keep the $100,000 deposit in accordance with the conditions of the contract.

• Mr. Dills (plaintiff "Dills") = a private developer = purchaser
• Town of Enfield, Connecticut ("Enfield") = defendant

Dills lost in the trial court.

Does the doctrine of impracticability apply when the supervening event preventing performance was explicitly contemplated by the parties?

Dills argued the Impracticability Defense because he couldn't secure financing.

Dills made 2 key arguments to no avail: (1) final construction plans would have cost him more than his $100,000 deposit, & (2) the final construction plan would have been futile since he had learned that he couldn't get the $1 million financing.

The doctrine of impracticability requires that the non-occurrence of the supervening event be a basic assumption on which the contract relies.

Affirmed.

Dills didn't submit final constructions plans which the contract required for him to recover his deposit.

Chief Justice Peters: The inability of Dills to obtain financing was anticipated.