No. 81-469
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1982
ROY MAXTED,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
KENNETH P. BARRETT and VOLA J. BARRETT,
husband and wife,
Defendants and Appellants.
.1 from: District Court of the First Judicial District,
In and for the County of Lewis and Clark
Honorable Mark P. Sullivan, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellants:
Small, Hatch & Doubek, Helena, Montana
Richard J. Pyfer argued, Helena, Montana
For Respondent:
Hooks and Budewitz, Townsend, Montana
Patrick F. Hooks argued, Townsend, Montana
Submitted: April 5, 1982
Decided :
APR 2 6 1982
M r . C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e
Court.
D e f e n d a n t s a p p e a l t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e c i s i o n o r d e r i n g them
t o s p e c i f i c a l l y perform t h e i r agreement with t h e p l a i n t i f f
wherein p l a i n t i f f w a s t o purchase d e f e n d a n t s ' mortgagee's in-
t e r e s t i n t h e Denver Block Apartments p r o p e r t y i n Helena. We
af firm.
On March 23, 1 9 7 9 , d e f e n d a n t s s o l d t h e "Denver B l o c k
A p a r t m e n t s " ( 1 2 5 Broadway, H e l e n a ) t o B e n j a m i n and A n n i e Brown.
Browns assumed a f i r s t m o r t g a g e h e l d by t h e H e l e n a A m e r i c a n
F e d e r a l S a v i n g s and Loan A s s o c i a t i o n and e x e c u t e d a n o t e to
d e f e n d a n t s f o r $ 6 7 , 0 0 0 a t 9%, s e c u r e d b y a s e c o n d m o r t g a g e . Each
m o n t h l y payment amounted t o $ 8 4 8 . 7 4 . I n s u r a n c e p a y a b l e to t h e
d e f e n d a n t s was c a r r i e d t o t h e e x t e n t o f t h e s e c o n d m o r t g a g e ' s
balance.
By t h e e a r l y p a r t o f 1 9 8 0 , t h e Browns were d e l i n q u e n t i n
t h e i r m o n t h l y p a y m e n t s and had n o t p a i d t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y t a x e s
f o r 1979. D e f e n d a n t s f i l e d a n a c t i o n to f o r e c l o s e t h e i r s e c o n d
m o r t g a g e b u t d i d n o t p u r s u e i t , h o p i n g t h a t t h e Browns would be
a b l e to g e t t h e i r f i n a n c i a l p r o b l e m s r e m e d i e d .
I n A p r i l 1981, p l a i n t i f f contacted t h e d e f e n d a n t s
r e g a r d i n g t h e p o s s i b l e p u r c h a s e of t h e i r s e c o n d m o r t g a g e e ' s
i n t e r e s t in the property. The Browns were s t i l l i n d e f a u l t o n
t h e m o n t h l y p a y m e n t s and d e f e n d a n t s were aware t h a t t h e C i t y o f
H e l e n a had o r d e r e d t h e Browns t o b r i n g t h e b u i l d i n g up t o c o d e b y
S e p t e m b e r 1, 1 9 8 1 , o r h a v e it be condemned.
On A p r i l 1 5 , 1 9 8 1 , p l a i n t i f f and d e f e n d a n t s s i g n e d a
real tor s buy-sell agreement ( a Stevens-Ness form e n t i t l e d
" R e c e i p t and A g r e e m e n t t o S e l l and P u r c h a s e " ) wherein p l a i n t i f f
p u r c h a s e d d e f e n d a n t s i n t e r e s t f o r $ 3 7 , 5 0 0 , w h i c h was a l i t t l e
o v e r h a l f of what w a s s t i l l d u e and owing o n t h e n o t e b e t w e e n t h e
d e f e n d a n t s and Brown ( a b o u t $ 6 3 , 0 0 0 ) . The p a r t i e s i n s e r t e d t h e
f o l l o w i n g language i n t h e agreement w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e $37,500:
" . . . to b e p a i d i n f u l l by J u n e 1 s t o r
s o o n e r , d e p e n d i n g upon t h e c o n t i n g e n c y o f r e h a -
b i l i t a t i o n l o a n from American F e d e r a l S a v i n g s t o
purchaser. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . S e l l e r a g r e e s to s e l l t h e i r
e n t i r e i n t e r e s t i n t h e Denver A p a r t m e n t s t o
p u r c h a s e r upon r e c e i p t o f t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e
stated ."
P l a i n t i f f p a i d $100 e a r n e s t money a t t h a t t i m e . On A p r i l 23,
1 9 8 1 , p l a i n t i f f a g r e e d w i t h Browns t o p u r c h a s e t h e i r i n t e r e s t and
r e c e i v e a d e e d to t h e p r o p e r t y , e f f e c t i v e May 2 6 , 1 9 8 1 . Under
t h a t a g r e e m e n t , p l a i n t i f f was t o assume t h e Browns' i n d e b t e d n e s s ,
i n c l u d i n g t h e second mortgage. On May 25, 1 9 8 1 , f i r e c o m p l e t e l y
d e s t r o y e d t h e b u i l d i n g and t h e r e a f t e r p l a i n t i f f s e n t a r e s c i s s i o n
n o t i c e t o Browns, s t a t i n g t h a t t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e b u i l d i n g
c o n s t i t u t e d a f a i l u r e of c o n s i d e r a t i o n . On May 29, 1 9 8 1 ,
p l a i n t i f f t e n d e r e d t o d e f e n d a n t s a c h e c k f o r $ 3 7 , 4 0 0 and a n
A s s i g n m e n t o f M o r t g a g e form. D e f e n d a n t s r e f u s e d b o t h c h e c k s and
r e t u r n e d them and t h e u n e x e c u t e d A s s i g n m e n t form to p l a i n t i f f s
attorney.
On J u n e 3 , 1 9 8 1 , p l a i n t i f f f i l e d s u i t s e e k i n g s p e c i f i c
performance of t h e agreement with d e f e n d a n t s . Defendants
answered, r a i s i n g v a r i o u s d e f e n s e s , including the f a c t t h a t
p l a i n t i f f had n o t o b t a i n e d t h e r e h a b i l i t a t i o n l o a n as p e r t h e
a g r e e m e n t and t h a t p l a i n t i f f would be u n j u s t l y e n r i c h e d . Af t e r
d e p o s i t i o n s , the Court granted p l a i n t i f f I s m o t i o n f o r summary
j u d g m e n t , t h e e f f e c t o f w h i c h is t o g i v e t h e p l a i n t i f f $ 2 5 , 5 0 0
($63,000 i n i n s u r a n c e p r o c e e d s l e s s t h e $37,500 payment t o
defendants). Defendants appeal.
The i n s u r a n c e c a r r i e r h a s p a i d t h e $ 6 3 , 0 0 0 i n i n s u r a n c e
proceeds i n t o the District Court i n a s e p a r a t e i n t e r p l e a d e r
a c t i o n , pending t h e f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h i s c a s e .
The i s s u e o n a p p e a l is w h e t h e r t h e lower c o u r t e r r e d i n
g r a n t i n g summary j u d g m e n t to p l a i n t i f f and o r d e r i n g d e f e n d a n t s
t o s p e c i f i c a l l y perform the April 15 agreement.
I t is c l e a r t h a t e i t h e r way t h i s case is d e c i d e d , o n e o f
t h e p a r t i e s is g o i n g t o r e c e i v e a s u b s t a n t i a l amount o f money i n
i n s u r a n c e p r o c e e d s w h i c h was n o t i n a n y o f t h e p a r t i e s 1 con-
t e m p l a t i o n a t t h e t i m e of c o n t r a c t i n g . Bearing t h i s i n mind, we
p r o c e e d t o examine t h e p a r t i e s ' v a r i o u s c o n t e n t i o n s .
A p p e l l a n t s f i r s t a r g u e t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f was n o t e n t i t l e d
t o s p e c i f i c p e r f o r m a n c e b e c a u s e he f a i l e d to p e r f o r m t h e con-
t i n g e n c i e s r e q u i r e d b y t h e c o n t r a c t , i .e. t h e c o n t r a c t r e q u i r e d
t h e p l a i n t i f f t o o b t a i n a r e h a b i l i t a t i o n l o a n from A m e r i c a n
F e d e r a l S a v i n g s and Loan which he f a i l e d to d o . P l a i n t i f f coun-
t e r s by e m p h a s i z i n g t h e p r o v i s i o n i n t h e c o n t r a c t which s t a t e s
t h a t d e f e n d a n t s w i l l t r a n s f e r t h e i r i n t e r e s t t o p l a i n t i f f on
r e c e i p t o f t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e , which d e f e n d a n t s f a i l e d to d o .
A c c o r d i n g t o p l a i n t i f f , t h e s o u r c e o f t h e money is immaterial .
W e agree with the p l a i n t i f f . The i m p o r t a n t f a c t h e r e is
t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s had r e c e i v e d t h e f u l l $ 3 7 , 5 0 0 p u r c h a s e p r i c e
b y May 2 9 , 1 9 8 1 , and t h e y r e f u s e d to a s s i g n t h e i r i n t e r e s t to
plaintiff. A p p e l l a n t s e m p h a s i s o f t h e need to o b t a i n t h e f u n d i n g
f r o m A m e r i c a n F e d e r a l as c o n d i t i o n p r e c e d e n t to t h e i r p e r f o r m a n c e
r i n g s h o l l o w when it is c o n s i d e r e d t h a t e l s e w h e r e i n t h e i r b r i e f
a p p e l l a n t s c o n c e d e t h a t , a f t e r t h e f i r e , t h e r e was no way f o r
p l a i n t i f f to o b t a i n a r e h a b i l i t a t i o n l o a n b e c a u s e t h e b u i i l d i n g
no l o n g e r e x i s t e d .
Also, w e are m i n d f u l o f t h e f a c t t h a t a p p e l l a n t s were
w i l l i n g to r i d t h e m s e l v e s o f Brown as a d e b t o r and a c c e p t e d a n
a p p r o x i m a t e 50% r e d u c t i o n i n t h e v a l u e o f t h e n o t e Brown had e x e -
c u t e d t o them. They are now a t t e m p t i n g to r e l i e v e t h e m s e l v e s o f
t h i s o b l i g a t i o n i n view of t h e p o t e n t i a l i n s u r a n c e p r o c e e d s
recovery.
Appellants n e x t argue t h a t s p e c i f i c performance does not
l i e b e c a u s e t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r of t h e c o n t r a c t was s u b s t a n t i a l l y
d e s t r o y e d b e f o r e t h e c o n t r a c t was c l o s e d . Appellants cite
s e v e r a l cases i n s u p p o r t o f t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n , i n c l u d i n g G e i s t v .
Lehmann ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 9 I l l . A p p . 3 d 5 5 7 , 3 1 2 N.E.2d 4 2 ; W h e e l e r v.
Gahan ( 1 9 2 4 ) , 206 Ky. 3 6 6 , 2 6 7 S.W. 227 and Gamble v. G a r l o c k
( 1 9 1 1 ) , 1 1 6 Minn. 5 9 , 1 3 3 N.W. 175. P l a i n t i f f a r g u e s t h a t most
of a p p e l l a n t s 1 c a s e s involve a seller seeking s p e c i f i c perfor-
mance and are t h u s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e case a t b a r w h e r e t h e
b u y e r s e e k s t h e remedy. A l t h o u g h W h e e l e r and Gamble b o t h
involved o p t i o n e e s being denied s p e c i f i c performance, p l a i n t i f f
a r g u e s t h e y are n o t i n p o i n t b e c a u s e a n a b a t e m e n t o f t h e p u r c h a s e
p r i c e was i n v o l v e d .
I n Gamble, p l a i n t i f f l e a s e d d e f e n d a n t ' s h o u s e and l o t w i t h
a 90-day o p t i o n t o buy, b e g i n n i n g A p r i l 1, 1 9 1 1 . A f i r e occurred
A p r i l 27, 1 9 1 1 , and p l a i n t i f f a t t e m p t e d to e x e r c i s e h i s o p t i o n
w i t h an abatement i n p r i c e f o r t h e d e s t r u c t i o n of t h e b u i l d i n g s
and f u r n i t u r e . A f t e r being r e f u s e d , p l a i n t i f f sued f o r s p e c i f i c
performance with abatement. I n denying p l a i n t i f f any r e l i e f , the
Court stated :
"The p a r t i e s d i d n o t c o n t e m p l a t e t h a t a f i r e
m i g h t o c c u r , and t h a t t h e o f f e r s h o u l d s t i l l
h o l d g o o d , s u b j e c t to a d j u s t m e n t o f damages.
The owner w a s w i l l i n g to p a r t w i t h t h e e n t i r e
p r o p e r t y as it s t o o d f o r $ 6 , 0 0 0 , b u t s h e m i g h t
n o t have been w i l l i n g to s e l l t h e l a n d f o r t h a t
p r i c e l e s s t h e amount o f damages by a f i r e . "
1 1 6 Minn. a t , 1 3 3 N.W. a t 1 7 6 .
I n W h e e l e r , t h e r e was a s i m i l a r l e a s e - o p t i o n a r r a n g e m e n t
a n d w h i l e t h e p l a i n t i f f was a t t e m p t i n g to e x e r c i s e h i s o p t i o n , a
f i r e d e s t r o y e d t h e b u i l d i n g and n e a r l y a l l i m p r o v e m e n t s . The
Kentucky C o u r t of Appeals r e v e r s e d t h e lower c o u r t o r d e r , which
had g r a n t e d p l a i n t i f f s p e c i f i c performance w i t h an abatement i n
p r i c e , and made t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t s :
"To r e q u i r e s p e c i f i c p e f o r m a n c e u n d e r s u c h
c h a n g e d c o n d i t i o n s , n o t b r o u g h t a b o u t by e i t h e r
p a r t y , i s t o make f o r t h e p a r t i e s a new
contract--one n o t contemplated i n t h e i r o r i g i n a l
negotiations. For t h e s e r e a s o n s we are of o p i -
n i o n t h a t a p p e l l e e w a s n o t e n t i t l e d to s p e c i f i c
p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e c o n t r a c t , and t h a t t h e chan-
cellor erred i n holding otherwise. 206 Ky. a t
, 267 S.W. a t 229.
However, i n n e i t h e r Gamble n o r W h e e l e r is t h e r e a n y i n d i -
c a t i o n t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t s p e c i f i c a l l y gave t h e o p t i o n e e t h e r i g h t
to s p e c i f i c performance. Here, p a r a g r a p h f i v e o f t h e b u y / s e l l
states :
" 5 . The p u r c h a s e r a g r e e s t h a t t h i s c o n t r a c t d o e s
a u t h o r i z e t h e s e l l e r t o e n f o r c e t h e remedy o f
s p e c i f i c performance. The s e l l e r a g r e e s t h a t
t h i s c o n t r a c t d o e s a u t h o r i z e t h e p u r c h a s e r to
e n f o r c e t h e remedy o f s p e c i f i c p e r f o r m a n c e ."
M o r e o v e r , w e h a v e a s t a t u t e i n Montana which p r o v i d e s f o r s p e c i -
f i c performance under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h i s c a s e :
"27-1-411. When s p e c i f i c p e r f o r m a n c e - -
of an
o b l i g a t i o n - -e c o m p e l l e d .
may b E x c e p t as o t h e r -
wise p r o v i d e d i n t h i s p a r t and T i t l e 28, c h a p t e r
2 , p a r t s 1 6 and 1 7 , t h e s p e c i f i c p e r f o r m a n c e o f
a n o b l i g a t i o n may be c o m p e l l e d when:
" ( 4 ) it h a s been e x p r e s s l y agreed i n w r i t i n g ,
between t h e p a r t i e s to t h e c o n t r a c t , t h a t s p e c i -
f i c p e r f o r m a n c e t h e r e o f may be r e q u i r e d b y
e i t h e r party. . ."
W t h i n k t h e a b o v e s t a t u t e and t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e c o n t r a c t
e
i t s e l f f a v o r s t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of s p e c i f i c performance i n t h i s
case.
The n e x t a r g u m e n t a p p e l l a n t s make i s t h a t p l a i n t i f f w i l l
b e u n j u s t l y e n r i c h e d b y t h e lower c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t . While we
a g r e e t h a t p l a i n t i f f w i l l p r o f i t by t h e r e s u l t s of t h e lower
d e c i s i o n , i t is e q u a l l y a p p a r e n t t h a t a p p e l l a n t s would g a i n
s u b s t a n t i a l l y i f t h e d e c i s i o n were r e v e r s e d . Further, appellants
h a v e n o t c i t e d a n y case w h e r e u n j u s t e n r i c h m e n t was c o n s i d e r e d
d i s p o s i t i v e i n a s p e c i f i c performance a c t i o n . T h i s is not
s u r p r i s i n g due t o t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between s p e c i f i c performance
and u n j u s t e n r i c h m e n t . In a s p e c i f i c performance a c t i o n , t h e
p l a i n t i f f s e e k s to e n f o r c e t h e t e r m s of an agreement between t h e
p a r t i e s and t h e c o n t r a c t u r a l terms m u s t be s u f f i c i e n t l y c e r t a i n
s o t h e c o u r t c a n compel p e r f o r m a n c e . S e i f e r t v. S e i f e r t ( 1 9 7 7 ) ,
1 7 3 Mont. 5 0 1 , 568 P.2d 1 5 5 ; s e c t i o n 2 7 - 1 - 4 1 2 ( 6 ) , MCA.
The t h e o r y o f u n j u s t e n r i c h m e n t and r e s t i t u t i o n is b r o u g h t
i n t o p l a y when no c o n t r a c t b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s e x i s t s and t h e
court implies a contract i n law. One c o u r t s t a t e d i t t h u s :
" P l a i n t i f f a l t e r n a t i v e l y c o n t e n d s t h a t he is
e n t i t l e d t o payment by t h e d e f e n d a n t u n d e r a
t h e o r y of u n j u s t enrichment o r recovery i n
q u a s i - c o n t r a c t , w h i c h a l l o w s t h e c o u r t s to impose
a d u t y t o r e f u n d money t o t h e p e r s o n to whom it
r i g h t f u l l y belongs. T h i s argument also must
fail. A q u a s i or c o n s t r u c t i v e c o n t r a c t rests
upon t h e e q u i t a b l e p r i n c i p l e t h a t a p e r s o n s h a l l
n o t be allowed to e n r i c h h i m s e l f a t t h e expense
of another. - - - obligation created --
It is an by law
o n l-i-t h e a b s e n c e - - a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e
- y n of an
parties. B r a d k i n v. L e v e r t o n , 26 N.Y.2d 1 9 2 ,
309 N.Y.S.2d 1 9 2 , 2 5 7 N.E.2d 6 4 3 ( 1 9 7 0 ) . A s
- -
a l r e a d y n o t e d a b b v e , w h e r e , - h e i e , -. w r i = e n
as a
c o n t r a c t d o e s e x i s t , - -u t y - t h e c o u r t s i s
the d - of
t o e n f o r c e -.
-
Lummus Co. (S.D.N.Y.
it " ..
( E m p h a s i s a d d e d . ) Fox
1 9 8 1 ) , 5 2 4 F.SUPP. 2 7 ,
29-30.
Here it is u n d i s p u t e d t h e r e was a c o n t r a c t b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s
and a p p e l l a n t s u n j u s t e n r i c h m e n t a r g u m e n t s are n o t w e l l t a k e n .
S e e g e n e r a l l y Dobbs, Handbook o n t h e Law o f Remedies ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 9
A p p e l l a n t ' s n e x t c o n t e n t i o n is t h a t s p e c i f i c p e r f o r m a n c e
d o e s n o t l i e b e c a u s e t h e r e is no m u t u a l i t y o f remedy, c i t i n g
S c h u l t z v . C a m p b e l l ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 1 4 7 Mont. 4 3 9 , 4 1 3 P.2d 8 7 9 , which
holds in essence t h a t mutuality requires t h a t the decree w i l l
o p e r a t e w i t h o u t i n j u s t i c e or o p p r e s s i o n to p l a i n t i f f or
defendant. P l a i n t i f f , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e is
m u t u a l i t y o f remedy by t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f p a r a g r a p h f i v e of t h e
buy/sell, s u p r a , which s t a t e t h a t b o t h p a r t i e s s h a l l have t h e
r e m e d y o f s p e c i f i c p e r f o r m a n c e and t h a t p l a i n t i f f f u l l y p e r f o r m e d when
h e t e n d e r e d t h e r e m a i n i n g amount d u e o n May 2 9 , 1 9 8 1 . Both par-
t i e s c i t e s e c t i o n 27-1-414, MCA, which p r o v i d e s :
"27-1-414. Right t o s p e c i f i c performance - - to be
mutual. (1) When e i t h e r o f t h e p a r t i e s t o a n
o b l i g a t i o n is e n t i t l e d to a s p e c i f i c p e r f o r m a n c e
t h e r e o f a c c o r d i n g to t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f 27-1-411,
t h e o t h e r p a r t y is a l s o e n t i t l e d to i t , t h o u g h
n o t within those provisions.
" ( 2 ) N e i t h e r p a r t y - -y o b l i g a t i o n - - -
to an c a n b e com-
p e l l e d s p e c i f i c a l l y to perform unless t h e o t h e r
p a r t y t h e r e t o h a s p e r f o r m e d or is c o m p e l l a b l e
s p e c i f i c a l l y to perform e v e r y t h i n g t o which t h e
--
former is e n t i t l e d u n d e r t h e o o b l i g a t i o n ,
- - - -- - -
- ~L
or a
so, -
e i t h e r c o m ~ l e t e l v- n e a r l v - t o s e t h e r w i t h
f u l l c o m p e n s a t i o n -r-n y w a n t n o £ e n t i r e p e r f o r -
f o a --
mance ."
(Emphasis added. )
Applying t h e words of t h e s t a t u t e t o t h e p r e s e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s ,
t h e a p p e l l a n t s were e n t i t l e d to r e c e i v e $ 3 7 , 5 0 0 f o r t h e i r
mortgagee's i n t e r e s t , which, i t i s u n c o n t r o v e r t e d , was t e n d e r e d t o
them. The s o u r c e o f t h e money was immaterial u n t i l t h e p r o s p e c t
of insurance proceeds arose. Thus t h e y r e c e i v e d e v e r y t h i n g t h e y
were e n t i t l e d to and c o u l d be c o m p e l l e d by t h e lower c o u r t to
s p e c i f i c a l l y perform t h e i r p a r t of t h e o b l i g a t i o n .
F u r t h e r , w e d o n o t v i e w o u r d e c i s i o n t o d a y as b e i n g u n j u s t
or oppressive t o appellants, Schultz, supra. A p p e l l a n t s were
more t h a n r e a d y to r i d t h e m s e l v e s o f Brown as a n o b l i g o r , a s e v i -
d e n c e d b y t h e i r t a k i n g a s u b s t a n t i a l r e d u c t i o n i n t h e sale o f t h e
n o t e t o p l a i n t i f f , and t h e r e is n o t h i n g u n j u s t or o p p r e s s i v e i n
r e q u i r i n g them to f o l l o w t h r o u g h w i t h t h e i r end of t h e d e a l . The
o n l y t h i n g t h e y a r e l o s i n g is t h e r e c o v e r y o f i n s u r a n c e p r o c e e d s .
S e e s e c t i o n 27-1-415 ( 2 ) and 27-1-413, MCA.
F i n a l l y , a p p e l l a n t s contend t h a t t h e p a r t i e s contemplated
t h e sale of a b u i l d i n g and, s i n c e t h e f i r e d e s t r o y e d t h e
b u i l d i n g , t h e agreement is n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y e n f o r c e a b l e .
P l a i n t i f f c o u n t e r s by r e l y i n g o n t h e r u l e of law t h a t a c o n t r a c t ,
f r e e l y e n t e r e d i n t o , c a n n o t l a t e r be a v o i d e d when 20-20 h i n d s i g h t
i n d i c a t e s t h e t e r m s a r e n o t as f a v o r a b l e as t h e y o n c e a p p e a r e d to
be. I n s u p p o r t o f t h i s o p p o s i t i o n , p l a i n t i f f c i t e s H e i n v . Fox
( 1 9 5 3 ) , 1 2 6 Mont. 5 1 4 , 254 P.2d 1 0 7 6 , and V e t e r a n s R e h a b i l i t a t i o n
C e n t e r , I n c . v . B i r r e r ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 0 Mont. 1 8 2 , 5 5 1 P.2d 1 0 0 1 .
W e do n o t a g r e e w i t h a p p e l l a n t . W h i l e it i s t r u e t h a t
n e i t h e r p a r t y contemplated t h e r e c o v e r y of i n s u r a n c e p r o c e e d s
when t h e b u y / s e l l w a s e x e c u t e d , t h i s d o e s n o t a u t o m a t i c a l l y
n e g a t e t h e remedy o f s p e c i f i c p e r f o r m a n c e . What w e a r e c a l l e d o n
t o d o h e r e is r e n d e r a d e c i s i o n i n a f a c t s i t u a t i o n beyond t h e
s c o p e of t h e agreement i n t h e l i g h t of s u b s e q u e n t happenings.
The f a c t t h a t e v e r y c o n t i n g e n c y was n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e a g r e e m e n t
d o e s n o t r e n d e r it i n c a p a b l e o f b e i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y p e r f o r m e d .
Af f i r m e d .
\
Chief J u s t i c e