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

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

Massachusetts entered into two contracts with Paonessa (D) to replace a median strip. D contracted with Chase (P) to supply the concrete median barriers under two contracts. P produced one-half of the barriers, and then 100 residents brought a halt to the project because they objected to the removal of the grass median strips and their replacement with concrete median barriers. P became aware of the protests on June 1st. Citizens filed an action in Superior Court on June 6th. On June 7, 1983, D notified P by letter to stop producing the barriers. P stopped production on June 8th. An out of court settlement was reached, and no additional concrete median barriers were to be installed. D paid P for all the barriers it had produced at the contract price, and P, in fact, suffered no out of pocket losses. P then sued D for its anticipated profit on the barriers called for in the contract but not produced. D obtained a judgment based on impossibility of performance. The appeals court affirmed but noted that the doctrine of frustration of purpose was a more accurate theory of recovery. P appealed.

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

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