Court Opinion

ID: 9545927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:22:18.787945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:46.716830
License: Public Domain

Stafford, J.
(dissenting) — I agree the crucial question is whether the inability to obtain the necessary permits was foreseeable.
The majority concedes the parties could foresee some difficulty in obtaining the permits for strip mining. It was deemed unforeseeable, however, that there would be such a degree of public outcry or that continued resistance would be encountered by the enactment of RCW 43.21C (SEPA).
*567Reduced to its lowest common denominator, the majority holds that, although the parties clearly understood the permits might be difficult to obtain, they were unable to foresee that the strip-mining venture might prove impossible because of hostile public reaction and legal opposition. This is specious reasoning. Although it is acknowledged the parties knew the necessary permits might be difficult to obtain, the majority excuses noncompliance with the agreement merely because it believes the parties could not foresee the degree of difficulty to be encountered.
It is well known that public sentiment is both fluid and changeable. Thus, I find it difficult to accept as excusatory the assertion that one or both parties misjudged that public sentiment. Arguably, the only real event that might be deemed unforeseeable was the passage of SEPA which laid down stringent environmental rules. Yet, the new law did not, in and of itself, doom the project.
The majority has merely asserted an excuse, rather than providing a legal reason, for vitiating an otherwise valid agreement.
For the above reasons I respectfully dissent.
Brachtenbach, C.J., and Utter and Dimmick, JJ., concur with Stafford, J.
Reconsideration denied January 22, 1982.