Hanford v. Connecticut Fair Association
103 A. 838 (1918)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contractual obligation is discharged, and its performance excused, when the act contracted for becomes contrary to public policy because it poses a significant danger to public health.
Facts:
- The plaintiffs (Hanford) and the defendant (Connecticut Fair Association, Inc.) entered into a written contract for Hanford to promote and manage a baby show.
- The show was scheduled to take place at Charter Oak Park in Hartford from September 6th to 8th, 1916.
- The Association agreed to furnish a room for the show and pay Hanford $600.
- During the summer of 1916, a widespread and severe epidemic of infantile paralysis (polio) occurred in Hartford.
- The disease was known to be particularly dangerous to young children, often resulting in death or permanent disability.
- Due to the public health risk posed by the epidemic, the Association notified Hanford in mid-August that it wished to cancel the contract.
- The Association subsequently cancelled the contract for the stated reason of protecting public health.
Procedural Posture:
- Hanford sued the Connecticut Fair Association, Inc. in a Connecticut trial court for breach of contract.
- The Association answered, asserting the affirmative defense that the contract was unenforceable because the polio epidemic made the baby show contrary to public policy.
- Hanford filed a demurrer to the Association's answer, arguing that the defense was legally insufficient.
- The trial court overruled Hanford's demurrer, effectively siding with the Association's defense.
- Hanford appealed the trial court's ruling on the demurrer to the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party's contractual duty to perform become unenforceable when performance would be contrary to public policy because of a significant public health risk, such as an epidemic?
Opinions:
Majority - Shumway, J.
Yes, a party's contractual duty is unenforceable when performance would be contrary to public policy. The court will not require performance or award damages for a breach of a contract where the public's interest in health is endangered. The defendant's allegation that holding the baby show during the epidemic would be 'highly dangerous' to the health of the community must be taken as fact for the purposes of the demurrer. An event that is highly dangerous to public health is, by its nature, contrary to public policy. Even if the contractual promise was absolute, there is an implied condition that the show would not be held if public health was endangered, as neither party would have contemplated performance under such circumstances.
Dissenting - Beach, J.
No, an otherwise lawful act does not automatically become contrary to public policy simply because it becomes dangerous to public health. The public policy of the state is to entrust determinations of public health dangers to official health experts and authorities, not to a jury after the fact. For performance to be excused on these grounds, there should be an intervening statute or an official order from a responsible public health agency prohibiting the act. Because the defendant did not allege that the baby show had been officially prohibited by health officials, their defense is legally insufficient.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the contract defense of impossibility, extending it beyond literal impossibility or illegality to include situations where performance would violate public policy. It establishes that a severe public health crisis can render a contract unenforceable, even without a specific government order prohibiting the contracted activity. This precedent allows courts to imply a condition into contracts that performance is excused if it would gravely endanger the community, shifting some risk of unforeseen public crises from the breaching party to both parties.
Unlock the full brief for Hanford v. Connecticut Fair Association