Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

Dills v. Town of Enfield

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


Timothy Dills (plaintiff), a private developer, contracted to purchase and develop a tract of land from the Town of Enfield, Connecticut (Enfield) (defendant) for $985,900. Dills paid a $100,000 deposit to Enfield. The parties' contract provided that Enfield would convey the property to Dills 60 days after the fulfillment of two conditions: (1) the submission and approval of final construction plans as specified by the contract and (2) Dills's submission of evidence of sufficient mortgage financing. The contract also included two termination provisions. The first allowed Dills to reclaim his $100,000 deposit and terminate the contract if he failed to obtain mortgage financing. The second allowed Enfield to keep Dills’s deposit and terminate the contract if Dills failed to submit acceptable final construction plans. Dills submitted preliminary construction plans to Enfield. However, Dills never submitted acceptable final construction plans because, even though he had tried diligently, he was unable to obtain mortgage financing. Both Dills and Enfield tried to terminate the contract under the termination provisions. On December 19, 1974, Enfield voted to terminate the contract and keep Dills's deposit because Dills had failed to submit acceptable final construction plans. On December 22, 1974, Dills’s attorney notified Enfield that Dills was terminating the contract because he was unable to obtain mortgage financing. Enfield refused to return Dills’s deposit, and Dills sued Enfield to recover the deposit in Connecticut state court. The case was referred to a state referee. The referee concluded that Dills was excused from performance due to impracticability because he was unable to obtain financing. The referee therefore recommended that Dills be allowed to recover his deposit. The trial court disagreed with the referee and entered judgment for Enfield. Dills appealed 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 449,000 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 449,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 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