No. 12565
I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A
OR F F OTN
1974
JOHN A. PALMQUIST and BARBARA K.
PALMQUIST, husband and w i f e , and
WAYNE W. WHITNEY and HELEN WHITNEY,
husband and w i f e ,
P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents,
ALLARDYCE PETROLEUM CORPORATION,
a Colorado c o r p o r a t i o n ,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Hon. W. W . Lessley, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
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
F i l e d : APR - 11974
Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
Defendant, A l l a r d y c e Petroleum C o r p o r a t i o n , b r i n g s t h i s
a p p e a l from a summary judgment e n t e r e d by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f
G a l l a t i n County i n f a v o r of p l a i n t i f f s , John A . P a l m q u i s t and
Barbara K. P a l m q u i s t , husband and w i f e , o r d e r i n g s p e c i f i e d p e r -
formance of a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t f o r t h e p u r c h a s e of l a n d .
The c o n t r a c t was e n t e r e d i n t o F e b r u a r y 1 0 , 1971, and
p r o v i d e d f o r p u r c h a s e by p l a i n t i f f s from d e f e n d a n t of "Lot No.
14" i n t h e " B r i d g e r P i n e s S u b d i v i s i o n " l o c a t e d i n G a l l a t i n County,
Montana, n e a r t h e " B r i d g e r Bowl" s k i a r e a . 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 p a i d $100 e a r n e s t money and a g r e e d t o
pay $5,900 a s t h e b a l a n c e of t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e :
"Balance t o be p a i d 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 d e s c r i b e d
on a " P r e l i m i n a r y Road and Lot P l a n " which had n o t been approved
and r e c o r d e d a s a s u b d i v i s i o n p l a t i n G a l l a t i n County a t t h e t i m e
t h e c o n t r a c t w a s signed. I n i t s answer d e f e n d a n t contended t h e
G a l l a t i n County c i t y - c o u n t y p l a n n i n g board and t h e c o u n t y commis-
s i o n e r s o f G a l l a t i n County r e f u s e d t o approve t h a t p r e l i m i n a r y
r o a d and l o t p l a n , which n e c e s s i t a t e d t h e r e d e s i g n of t h e B r i d g e r
Pines Subdivision p l a t . The r e d e s i g n e d p l a t of B r i d g e r P i n e s
S u b d i v i s i o n e l i m i n a t e d Lot No. 1 4 and d e s i g n a t e d t h e a r e a it p r e -
v i o u s l y o c c u p i e d a s "open s p a c e " . N c o n t e n t i o n s were made by
o
d e f e n d a n t c o n c e r n i n g whether t h e B r i d g e r P i n e s S u b d i v i s i o n p l a t
c o u l d have been r e d e s i g n e d and approved t o r e t a i n t h e o r i g i n a l l y
d e s i g n a t e d Lot No. 1 4 . R a t h e r , it s i m p l y contended t h a t t h r o u g h
no f a u l t of d e f e n d a n t , t h e o r i g i n a l p l a t was n o t a p p r o v e d , making
t h e s a l e c o n t r a c t i m p o s s i b l e t o perform.
P l a i n t i f f s contended t h a t t h e r e d e s i g n of t h e B r i d g e r
P i n e s S u b d i v i s i o n p l a t s o as t o e l i m i n a t e Lot No. 1 4 was a " s l e i g h t
of hand t r i c k " done i n a n a t t e m p t 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 t h u s e n a b l e d e f e n d a n t t o t a k e a d v a n t a g e of t h e s u b s t a n t i a l l y
a p p r e c i a t e d v a l u e s of t h i s a s r e c r e a t i o n l a n d . 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-
tion.
The i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s Court i s whether t h e summary judg-
ment g r a n t i n g s p e c i f i c performance o f t h e c o n t r a c t was p r o p e r on
t h e p l e a d i n g s , m o t i o n s , e v i d e n c e , b r i e f s and h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e
d i s t ri c t c o u r t .
Defendant c o n t e n d s t h e h e r e i n a b o v e quoted c o n t r a c t l a n g -
uage amounted t o a c o n t r a c t u a l c o n d i t i o n p r e c e d e n t . W e f i n d no
m e r i t i n t h i s contention. I t i s a p r i n c i p l e o f 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 c o v e n a n t i n a c o n t r a c t w i l l n o t be
c o n s t r u e d a s a c o n d i t i o n p r e c e d e n t , p a r t i c u l a r l y where a f o r -
f e i t u r e would r e s u l t and where it a p p e a r s a c o n d i t i o n p r e c e d e n t ,
i f d e s i r e d , c o u l d have been p r o v i d e d f o r by e x p r e s s agreement.
17A C . J . S . C o n t r a c t s B 338; 12 C a l . J u r . 2 d C o n t r a c t s B 171; 17
Am J u r 2d, C o n t r a c t s S 321.
Defendant c o n t e n d s a l s o t h a t t h e u n f o r s e e a b l e a c t of t h e
G a l l a t i n County c i t y - c o u n t y p l a n n i n g board and t h e c o u n t y commis-
s i o n e r s of G a l l a t i n County i n d i s a p p r o v i n g t h e o r i g i n a l p l a t o f
B r i d g e r P i n e s S u b d i v i s i o n gave r i s e t o t h e d e f e n s e of c o n t r a c t u a l
i m p o s s i b i l i t y a s a m a t t e r of law. W e f i n d no m e r i t i n t h i s con-
tention. I n Hein v . Fox, 1 2 6 Mont. 514, 254 P.2d 1076, t h i s
Court s a i d :
"Then t o o , 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 p e r m i s s i o n of government o f f i c e r s
w i l l be r e q u i r e d d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f performance,
t h a t s u c h p e r m i s s i o n was n o t f o r t h c o m i n g when
r e q u i r e d d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e a n e x c u s e f o r non-
performance. See 17 C.J.S. C o n t r a c t s , s e c . 463,
page 953; S t a n d a r d O i l Co. of N e w York v. C e n t r a l
Dredging Co. 252 N.Y. 545, 170 N.E. 137."
See a l s o Corbin on C o n t r a c t s , Vol. 6 , B 1346; 84 ALR2d
W c a n n o t , upon t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s , a f f i r m t h e remedy
e
of s p e c i f i c performance, which i s , under t h e law, a n e x t r a o r d i n -
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 c a n be
o r d e r e d o n l y on e q u i t a b l e grounds. There i s i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e
i n t h e r e c o r d from which t o d e t e r m i n e whether s p e c i f i c perform-
a n c e a s d i r e c t e d would work an i n o r d i n a t e i n c o n v e n i e n c e o r hard-
s h i p upon t h e d e f a u l t i n g p a r t y o r upon i n n o c e n t t h i r d p e r s o n s who
may have p u r c h a s e d l o t s i n t h e B r i d g e r P i n e s S u b d i v i s i o n a s i t
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; 8 1 C.J.S. S p e c i f i c Performance §§ 1 7 , 18 and 19;
7 1 Am J u r 2d, S p e c i f i c Performance §§ 75 and 76.
The o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t i n g s p e c i f i c p e r -
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 i s r e v e r s e d
and t h i s c a u s e remanded f o r
/ Justice
W e concur:
Chief J u s t i c e
, Justices