Constructive conditions Forum

[mohdban]

Hello everyone,

I have a question about constructive conditions in Contracts.

If the agreement between A and B is:

A: I promise to paint your house

B: I promise to give you $50

These two promises would be dependent on each other as per the doctrine of constructive conditions; meaning that if A does not perform, B does not have to. And if B does not perform, A does not have to.

If neither party performs, can either party sue for damages? How and why?

Or is the only remedy available in these cases through promissory estoppel?

Thanks!

[Kinky John]

Hopefully my studying is working...If there's a K there's no promissory estoppel. You have consideration on both sides - bargain (promise for a promise) and inducement (A is painting the house to receive the money and B is paying to receive a painted house). Since there's a K, there's no PE issue.

This is a service K so common law performance rules apply. Is the situation anticipatory repudiation? Or has the time for performance come and gone? If A/B does perform, is it substantial performance, partial material breach, or total material breach? A's/B's available actions (when and if A/B can sue) depend on that.

[ND2018]

Hello everyone,

I have a question about constructive conditions in Contracts.

If the agreement between A and B is:

A: I promise to paint your house

B: I promise to give you $50

These two promises would be dependent on each other as per the doctrine of constructive conditions; meaning that if A does not perform, B does not have to. And if B does not perform, A does not have to.

If neither party performs, can either party sue for damages? How and why?

Or is the only remedy available in these cases through promissory estoppel?

Thanks!

Could be completely wrong, but when one performance will take substantially longer than other, it is an implied constructive condition that the house painter must perform first. No performance by A means no duty to pay on B's part... No payment by B then you can get the 50. A refuses to perform you could get specific performance or have A pay the difference in price between the 50 and the next comparable alternative performance. No difference no damage.

[Calbears123]

Assuming this isn't an option contract and the painter can accept by promise, the general rule is that the promise that takes longer to perform (the paint job) must go first and becomes a condition precedent for the other parties promise to pay. If the painter breaches by not painting he has breached and which discharges the other parties duty to pay.

Its in the restatement somewhere