Constructive conditions Forum

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
Post Reply
User avatar
mohdban

Bronze
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 10:06 am

Constructive conditions

Post by mohdban » Sat Nov 28, 2015 10:35 pm

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!

User avatar
Kinky John

Silver
Posts: 1138
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 10:52 am

Re: Constructive conditions

Post by Kinky John » Sat Nov 28, 2015 10:52 pm

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

New
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 4:08 pm

Re: Constructive conditions

Post by ND2018 » Sun Nov 29, 2015 12:04 am

mohdban wrote: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.

User avatar
Calbears123

Bronze
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 5:38 am

Re: Constructive conditions

Post by Calbears123 » Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:37 am

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

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


Post Reply

Return to “Forum for Law School Students”