Hanford v. Connecticut Fair Association

Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors · Contracts

ContractsPublic policyImpossibility/Implied conditionspublic policypublic healthvoid contractimplied conditiondangerous performance

Facts

The parties entered a written agreement under which the plaintiffs would promote and manage a baby show at Charter Oak Park in Hartford on September 6th, 7th, and 8th, 1916, supplying prizes and advertising materials, while the defendant would furnish a room and pay $600. The defendant alleged that in late August and early September 1916 infantile paralysis was epidemic in Hartford and Connecticut, especially attacking babies and young children. According to the answer, assembling children for the proposed baby show would be highly dangerous to the health of the community. The defendant notified the plaintiffs in mid-August that it wished to cancel the contract for that reason and later definitely cancelled it.

Issue

Whether the defendant's answer stated a valid defense by alleging that holding the contracted-for baby show during an epidemic would be highly dangerous to public health and therefore contrary to public policy. Also, whether an apparently absolute promise to hold the event is subject to an implied condition that it need not be performed if performance would endanger public health.

Rule

Whether a contract is contrary to public policy is a question of law when the underlying facts are undisputed. A contract is void and unenforceable if, in its nature or general tendency, its performance might be injurious to the public; courts will not compel performance or award damages for breach where performance would in fact endanger public health. Even an absolute and unqualified promise is read as containing an implied condition that the contemplated performance will not occur if doing so would endanger public health.

🔒

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.

Lakeside Events Group agreed to stage a "Tiny Tots Expo" at a fairground in Columbus, Ohio, and Meadow Vale Fair Society agreed to provide hall space and pay a management fee. One week before the event, a fast-spreading illness disproportionately affecting infants was raging in the region, and the fair society alleges that gathering hundreds of infants indoors would be highly dangerous to community health, so it cancelled.

If Lakeside sues for breach and the fair society proves those allegations, which result is most consistent with the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority rule is that a court will not require performance or award damages for breach when the contemplated performance would in fact endanger public health. A contract whose performance has a general tendency to injure the public is contrary to public policy and unenforceable, even if otherwise valid in form. (Derived from Hanford v. Connecticut Fair Association (n.d.).)