Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,300+ case briefs...

Dills v. Town of Enfield

Connecticut Supreme Court
557 A.2d 517 (1989)


Dills (plaintiff), a private developer, contracted to purchase and develop a tract of land from the Town of Enfield (Enfield) (defendant) for $985,900. Dills provided a $100,000 deposit to Enfield. Under the terms of the contract, Enfield agreed to convey the property to Dills sixty days after the fulfillment of two conditions: the submission and approval of final construction plans in accordance with contract specifications, and the submission of evidence of sufficient mortgage financing by Dills. The contract also provided two termination clauses. The first clause allowed Dills to keep his $100,000 deposit and terminate the contract in the event that he failed to obtain mortgage financing. The second clause allowed Enfield to keep Dills’ deposit and terminate the contract in the event that Dills failed to submit acceptable final construction plans within a specified time frame. Dills submitted preliminary construction plans to Enfield, but never actually submitted acceptable final construction plans. Additionally, despite diligent efforts, Dills was unable to obtain mortgage financing. On December 19, 1974, Enfield voted to terminate the contract because Dills failed to submit acceptable final construction plans. On December 22, 1974, Dills’ attorney notified Enfield Dills was terminating the contract because he was unable to obtain mortgage financing. Enfield refused to return Dills’ deposit. Dills brought suit in Connecticut state court against Enfield, seeking to recover his $100,000 deposit. The case was referred to a state referee. The referee held that Dills was excused from performance due to impracticability since he was unable to obtain financing. The Connecticut state court reversed and entered judgment for Enfield. Dills appealed, and the case was transferred to the Connecticut Supreme Court.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Peters, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 370,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,300 briefs, keyed to 223 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial