Opinion ID: 3026296
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mazzio's Liability Under the Contract

Text: Mazzio's appeals the district court's decision holding it liable under the contract, and rejecting its defense of impossibility. We review under the clearly erroneous standard. See Sherman v. Runyon, 253 F.3d 406, 408 (8th Cir. 2000). The district court conducted a thorough bench trial. It considered testimony on the meaning of the customary language in the contract, in light of the license and permit requirements of Springdale, and the premium Mazzio's paid for the property. Mazzio's argued that it didn't believe it could obtain the building and liquor permits it would need to operate its restaurant. In addition, Mazzio's chose not to apply for the licenses because of newfound expenses. However, under Arkansas law, mere inconvenience or cost of compliance does not excuse a contractual obligation. Crookham & Vessels, inc. v. Larry Moyer Trucking, Inc., 699 S.W.2d 414, 416-17 2 In addition, we find no abuse of discretion in declining Mazzio's untimely motion to amend its complaint. See Bell v. Allstate Life Insurance Co., 160 F.3d 452, 453 (8th Cir. 1998). -4- (Ark. Ct. App. 1985). Mazzio's failed to meet its burden of proving the impossibility defense, and it has not shown the district court was clearly erroneous in its findings.