This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Bell (P) contracted to purchase 10 acres of land from Elder (D) for $25,000. The land sold was zoned agricultural, and the parties had hopes of developing the area more extensively. The contract required D to furnish water and electrical power to the property by 1978, but if P was unable to obtain a building permit by that time, D agreed to repay the purchase price within six months. P never obtained the building permit. A supplemental agreement repeated D’s promise to provide culinary water as well as electrical power but again this remained unperformed, and P had in fact abandoned the project. P sued D to rescind the contract arguing that D had breached by failing to supply culinary water to the property, as the contract required. The trial court saw no purpose in requiring installation of culinary water facilities to serve the rather remote property not intended for residential use. The trial court interpreted the contract that D was required to be able to supply the water and that D was only required to do so when P had obtained a building permit and was about to construct a house so that the water would be put to beneficial use. P appealed. P argues that the residential use of the property was not a condition precedent to D's obligation to furnish culinary water.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.