Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiffs sued for a return of their deposit for the purchase of the Defendants’ premises after the Plaintiffs were unable to secure financing within the agreed-upon parameters of the contract.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A contract is not binding where a condition precedent to performance of the agreement was not met.
Issue. Did the Plaintiffs exercise due diligence in seeking a mortgage in order to satisfy the condition precedent to performance of the contract?
Held. Yes. The contract stipulated that the Plaintiffs’ purchase of the Defendants’ premises was conditioned upon the Plaintiffs’ ability to procure financing in the amount of $45,000 for a term of at least twenty years and at an interest rate of less than 8.5%. The Plaintiffs’ attorney sought financing at the only lending institution in and around the area that might satisfy the condition precedent, but was unable to secure the mortgage at the desired rate. His failure to look elsewhere does not constitute a lack of due diligence. He was knowledgeable about lending practices in the area. Therefore, seeking another lender would have been a futile act and the law imposes no duty to undertake a futile act. Hence, since the condition precedent was not met, the contract is not binding and the plaintiffs are entitled to a refund of their deposit.
If the condition is not fulfilled, the right to enforce the contract does not come into existence.View Full Point of Law