Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
The law does not require the performance of a futile act.
Plaintiff buyers sued defendant homeowners to recover their substantial down payment after they failed to obtain a mortgage because of a wetlands issue with the subject property. The trial court ruled in favor of plaintiffs, finding that the purchase agreement never came into existence because it was subject to an unfulfilled condition precedent. Defendants appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly found that plaintiffs made reasonable efforts to secure a mortgage and did not breach their implied contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing and required defendants to complete a wetlands application with the inland wetlands and watercourses agency.
Did the plaintiffs make reasonable efforts to secure a mortgage which was a condition precedent of the contract?
The court affirmed the decision of the trial court, finding that plaintiffs did not have to pursue a futile goal by visiting multiple financial institutions since time was of the essence for them and the wetlands issue proved an obstacle to obtaining a quick mortgage. Plaintiffs were also not bound to accept defendants' proposed financing arrangement.