Godburn v. Meserve

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut · Contracts

Contractsbilateral contractmutual dependent covenantsprevention doctrinewrongful hindrancereadiness and willingness to performcontract to devise propertyelderly promisor

Facts

The parties entered a written agreement under which plaintiffs would live with the decedent in her Stratford homestead, furnish her board and household services, care for her minor illnesses, and pay $10 monthly rent, and in return she would leave the property to them by will. The decedent made such a will, and the parties lived together under the arrangement until plaintiffs moved out in August 1941 and stopped performing; the decedent then revoked the will and later died. Plaintiffs claimed that the decedent's constant faultfinding, objections to guests and absences, complaints about food and water use, and other irritating behavior made continued residence very difficult. The decedent refused plaintiffs' proposed modification of the agreement shortly before they left.

Issue

Did the evidence permit the jury to find that the decedent wrongfully prevented plaintiffs from completing performance of the bilateral contract, so that plaintiffs could recover for her breach after leaving the home before her death?

Rule

In a bilateral contract containing mutual and dependent covenants, a party seeking judicial enforcement or damages for breach must show readiness and willingness to perform or sufficient excuse for not doing so. A party is excused from completing performance if the other party prevents performance, but such prevention exists only when the other party's conduct is wrongful, meaning in excess of that party's legal rights and not conduct fairly within the contemplation of the parties under the contract.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Portland, Maine, Lena Ortiz agreed in writing to live with 81-year-old Ruth Kessler, provide meals, laundry, and help with minor illnesses, and in return Ruth promised to leave Lena her townhouse by will. After two years, Ruth began criticizing Lena's cooking daily, complained about utility use, and objected whenever Lena's sister visited overnight; Lena moved out and sued after Ruth revoked the will.

If Lena claims she was excused from further performance because Ruth prevented completion of the contract, which is the strongest argument for Ruth?

Explanation. In a bilateral contract with dependent covenants, the party who stopped performing must show readiness and willingness to perform or a sufficient excuse. Prevention is such an excuse only if the other party's conduct was wrongful, meaning beyond that party's legal rights. Conduct that merely makes performance unpleasant or inconvenient, and is fairly within the contemplation of the parties, does not qualify as wrongful prevention. (Derived from Godburn v. Meserve (n.d.).)