Price v. Van Lint
120 P.2d 611 (1941)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contractual promise to perform an act by a specific date is considered an independent covenant if the time for that performance may arrive before the other party can render their counter-performance, particularly when the potential for such a timing discrepancy was known to both parties at the time of contracting.
Facts:
- C. S. Price sought to purchase a tract of land from the Maxwell Land Grant Company to construct a building for his business.
- On December 23, 1939, Price entered into a written agreement with V. J. Van Lint for a $1,500 loan to finance the project.
- Under the agreement, Van Lint was to deposit the loan money on or before February 1, 1940, and Price was to provide a mortgage on the land and new building as security.
- Both parties were aware that the deed for the land had to be sent to the Netherlands for execution by company officials, and that a considerable period would necessarily elapse before the deed could be delivered to Price.
- Van Lint advanced $134 for Price to purchase the land site in anticipation of the loan.
- Before the February 1st deadline, Van Lint attempted to be released from the agreement, but Price refused and insisted on performance.
- Van Lint then offered to deposit the money in a bank, but conditioned its availability on Price first receiving the deed and providing a valid mortgage.
- Price rejected this conditional offer, insisting the money be made available by February 1st as per the agreement, which Van Lint refused to do.
Procedural Posture:
- C. S. Price (plaintiff) sued V. J. Van Lint (defendant) in the district court for breach of a loan agreement.
- The trial court found that Van Lint breached the agreement, concluding that his promise to lend money was an independent covenant from Price's promise to provide security.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of Price, awarding him damages.
- Van Lint (appellant) appealed the judgment of the district court to the Supreme Court of New Mexico.
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 contractual promise to deposit loan money by a specific date create an independent covenant when both parties know the borrower may not be able to provide the promised mortgage security by that same date due to a foreseeable delay in acquiring title to the property?
Opinions:
Majority - Sadler, Justice
Yes, the promise to deposit the loan money is an independent covenant. When a contract contains mutual promises and the time for performance for one party may arrive before the time for performance by the other, the former promise is an independent obligation. Here, both parties knew that the deadline for Van Lint to deposit the loan money (February 1, 1940) could, and likely would, arrive before Price could provide the mortgage, as the deed was being processed overseas. This foreseeable timing misalignment makes Van Lint's promise to deposit the money independent of Price's promise to provide security. Therefore, Van Lint was obligated to perform his promise by the specified date, and his failure to do so constituted a breach of contract.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle of independent covenants in contract law, particularly in the context of loan agreements. The court prioritizes the parties' foreseeable intentions at the time of contracting over a rigid requirement of simultaneous performance. It establishes that if a delay in one party's ability to perform is known and understood when the contract is made, it will not excuse the other party's timely performance of their own obligations. This ruling serves as a caution to lenders and other contracting parties that specified performance dates can be strictly enforced, even if the promised security or counter-performance is not yet available due to anticipated circumstances.
