Court Opinion

ID: 9544261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:53:41.215059+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:31.332372
License: Public Domain

CONNOR, Justice
(dissenting).
The majority opinion properly recognizes that the injunction issued by the federal court cannot excuse performance by appel-lee, for that injunction did not directly prohibit construction of housing in Valdez, Alaska, or anywhere else. The majority opinion concludes, however, that because the federal injunction did prevent construction of the trans-Alaska pipeline, and because this dried up any available sources of financing, appellee’s delay in performance should be excused. With this conclusion I must respectfully disagree.
At the time the contract was formed no permit for the construction of the pipeline had been issued. It was then uncertain as to when the permit would be forthcoming. The vicissitudes of national governmental action on the pipeline project were part of the background against which the parties made their bargain. But nothing in the contract documents makes reference to the granting or withholding of the pipeline permit. Had the parties desired to hold the project in suspense in the event that an injunction against the issuance of the pipeline permit were granted by a federal court, it would have been a simple matter to include such a contingency in the written agreement. But this was not done.
I do not see this occurrence as coming with the “unforeseeable causes” of enforced delay mentioned in Section 707 of the contract. Rather, this case strikes me as being analogous to Glidden Co. v. Hellenic Lines, Ltd., 275 F.2d 253, 257 (2d Cir. 1960). There a charter party for transporting ores between India and the United States was ambiguous about the precise route intended. When the contract was formed the parties were aware that the Suez Canal might be closed because of the Israeli-Egyptian war. As a result of the closure of the Suez Canal it became necessary for the operator of the chartered vessels to transport the ore via the Panama Canal or around the Cape of Good Hope. The court held that this occurrence, the possibility of which had been equally apparent to both parties to the contract at the time they entered into it, did not excuse performance of the primary contractual obligation to transport the ore.
In my opinion this case should be governed by the principle that facts occurring after a bargain is made, which render performance more difficult or expensive than the parties anticipated, do not discharge a duty to perform. Restatement, Contracts, Section 467. If we were to so hold, we would merely place the parties in the status quo ante, and the development of the lots which were the subject of this project could begin anew, on a fresh basis.
I would, therefore, reverse and remand for the entry of a judgment in favor of the City of Valdez.