Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
Minnesota Supreme Court - 20 Minn. 494
Tags: Contracts, Impossibility, Risk allocation
tl;dr:
A builder had trouble completing a building according to contract specifications because the soil underneath turned out to be quicksand. The builder was still obligated to perform.Video Summary
Case Summary
In Stees v. Leonard (1874), the Minnesota Supreme Court dealt with a contract dispute between the plaintiffs and defendants regarding a three-story building that collapsed twice during construction due to poor soil conditions. The plaintiffs wanted compensation for the defendants' inability to complete the building.
The main question was whether the defendants were excused from fulfilling the contract due to soil problems making construction difficult or impossible. The court ruled that the defendants weren't excused and were responsible for damages to the plaintiffs. This was because the defendants took on the risk of any soil issues when they agreed to a fixed-price contract without any contingency clauses. The court also found that the defendants hadn't proven absolute impossibility to build on the soil, just increased difficulty and expense.
This case is important because it highlights the principle of strict performance in contract law, which requires a party to perform exactly what was agreed upon unless prevented by an act of God, the law, or the other party. The case shows that courts won't excuse a party from their contractual obligations based on hardship or impracticability unless specific provisions address these contingencies in the contract. When deciding if a breach is excusable, courts consider the extent of the problem and the intentions and conduct of those involved.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The legal principle is that a contractor must fulfill their contractual obligations, unless prevented by an act of God, the law, or the other party. The law enforces the exact terms of the contract and does not relieve parties from the consequences of their own actions. Recent cases such as Adams vs. Nichols and School Dist. vs. Dauchy have emphasized that any hardship that may arise is a result of the party's own lack of foresight or discretion. If a person makes an unconditional promise to perform a certain task by a specific time, and the task is not impossible or illegal at the time of the promise, then the person is bound by the promise unless the performance becomes illegal before the deadline. The law casts the loss upon the party who has agreed to sustain it, and unexpected impediments do not allow for a contract to be annulled or for terms to be interpolated that were not stipulated by the parties.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.