Case Title: PALMQUIST v ALLARDYCE PET CORP

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1974-04-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12565 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1974 JOHN A. PALMQUIST and BARBARA K. PALMQUIST, husband and wife, and WAYNE W. WHITNEY and H E L E N WHITNEY, husband and wife, P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, A L L A R D Y C E P E T R O L E U M CORPORATION, a Colorado corporation, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth Judicial D i s t r i c t , Hon. W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Berg, ~ ' C o n n e l l , Angel and Andriolo, Bozeman, Montana Charles F . Angel argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondents: Hughes, Bennett and Cain, Helena, Montana George T. Bennett argued, Helena, Montana Submitted : January 15, 1974 Decided: APf? - 1 1974 Filed: APR - 11974 Clerk M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant, Allardyce Petroleum Corporation, brings t h i s appeal from a summary judgment entered by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of G a l l a t i n County i n favor of p l a i n t i f f s , John A. Palmquist and Barbara K. Palmquist, husband and wife, ordering s p e c i f i e d per- formance of a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t f o r t h e purchase of land. The c o n t r a c t was entered i n t o February 1 0 , 1971, and provided f o r purchase by p l a i n t i f f s from defendant of "Lot No. 14" i n t h e "Bridger Pines Subdivision" located i n G a l l a t i n County, Montana, near t h e "Bridger Bowl" s k i area. Under t h e terms of t h e c o n t r a c t , p l a i n t i f f s paid $100 e a r n e s t money and agreed t o pay $5,900 a s t h e balance of t h e purchase price: "Balance t o be paid when P l a t i s approved and Covenants a r e f i l e d and t i t l e and Warranty Deed a r e given." "Lot No. 1 4 " r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e c o n t r a c t w a s s o described on a "Preliminary Road and Lot Plan" which had not been approved and recorded a s a subdivision p l a t i n G a l l a t i n County a t t h e time t h e c o n t r a c t w a s signed. I n i t s answer defendant contended t h e G a l l a t i n County city-county planning board and t h e county commis- sioners of G a l l a t i n County refused t o approve t h a t preliminary road and l o t plan, which necessitated t h e redesign of t h e Bridger Pines Subdivision p l a t . The redesigned p l a t of Bridger Pines Subdivision eliminated Lot No. 1 4 and designated t h e area it pre- viously occupied a s "open space". N o contentions were made by defendant concerning whether t h e Bridger Pines Subdivision p l a t could have been redesigned and approved t o r e t a i n t h e o r i g i n a l l y designated Lot No. 1 4 . Rather, it simply contended t h a t through no f a u l t of defendant, t h e o r i g i n a l p l a t was not approved, making t h e s a l e c o n t r a c t impossible t o perform. P l a i n t i f f s contended t h a t t h e redesign of t h e Bridger Pines Subdivision p l a t so as t o eliminate Lot No. 1 4 was a " s l e i g h t of hand t r i c k " done i n an attempt t o d e f e a t t h e w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t and thus enable defendant t o take advantage of t h e s u b s t a n t i a l l y appreciated values of t h i s a s r e c r e a t i o n land. There a r e no f a c t s i n t h e record before t h i s Court t o support e i t h e r conten- t i o n . The i s s u e before t h i s Court is whether t h e summary judg- ment granting s p e c i f i c performance of t h e c o n t r a c t was proper on t h e pleadings, motions, evidence, b r i e f s and hearing before t h e d i s t r i c t court. Defendant contends t h e hereinabove quoted c o n t r a c t lang- uage amounted t o a contractual condition precedent. W e f i n d no m e r i t i n t h i s contention. It i s a p r i n c i p l e of c o n t r a c t law t h a t a mere s t i p u l a t i o n o r covenant i n a c o n t r a c t w i l l not be construed a s a condition precedent, p a r t i c u l a r l y where a for- f e i t u r e would r e s u l t and where it appears a condition precedent, i f desired, could have been provided f o r by express agreement. 17A C . J . S . Contracts B 338; 12 Cal.Jur.2d Contracts B 171; 17 Am J u r 2d, Contracts S 321. Defendant contends a l s o t h a t t h e unforseeable a c t of t h e G a l l a t i n County city-county planning board and t h e county commis- s i o n e r s of G a l l a t i n County i n disapproving t h e o r i g i n a l p l a t of Bridger Pines Subdivision gave r i s e t o t h e defense of c o n t r a c t u a l impossibility a s a matter of law. W e f i n d no merit i n t h i s con- t e n t i o n . I n Hein v. Fox, 1 2 6 Mont. 514, 254 P.2d 1076, t h i s Court said: "Then too, where a p a r t y e n t e r s i n t o a c o n t r a c t knowing t h a t permission of government o f f i c e r s w i l l be required during t h e course of performance, t h a t such permission was not forthcoming when required does not c o n s t i t u t e an excuse f o r non- performance. See 17 C.J.S. Contracts, sec. 463, page 953; Standard O i l Co. of New York v. Central Dredging Co. 252 N.Y. 545, 170 N.E. 137." See a l s o Corbin on Contracts, Vol. 6, B 1346; 84 ALR2d W e cannot, upon t h e record before us, affirm t h e remedy of s p e c i f i c performance, which is, under t h e law, an extraordin- a r y s u b s t i t u t e f o r t h e l e g a l remedy of compensation and can be ordered only on equitable grounds. There i s i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence i n t h e record from which t o determine whether s p e c i f i c perform- ance a s d i r e c t e d would work an inordinate inconvenience o r hard- s h i p upon t h e defaulting party o r upon innocent t h i r d persons who may have purchased l o t s i n t h e Bridger Pines Subdivision a s it i s now p l a t t e d . I n t e r i o r S e c u r i t i e s Co. v. Campbell, 55 Mont. 459, 178 P. 582; 81 C.J.S. Specific Performance § § 17, 18 and 19; 71 Am J u r 2d, Specific Performance § § 75 and 76. The order of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t granting s p e c i f i c per- formance of conveyance of Lot 1 4 a s o r i g i n a l l y p l a t t e d is reversed and t h i s cause remanded f o r / J u s t i c e W e concur: Chief J u s t i c e , J u s t i c e s