Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)

Citation: Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
Parent Document: Blitz v. Subklew, 74 Conn. App. 183 (2002)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2002-12-17
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7911954/blitz-v-subklew/ ↗

Full Text

1,123 chars

It is clear that the plaintiffs obligation to obtain written approval was a condition precedent to the leasing agreement. “A condition precedent is a fact or event which the parties intend must exist or take place before there is a right to performance. ... A condition is distinguished from a promise in that it creates no right or duty in and of itself but is merely a limiting or modifying factor. ... If the condition is not fulfilled, the right to enforce the contract does not come into existence. . . . Whether a provision in a contract is a condition the nonfulfilment of which excuses performance depends upon the intent of the parties, to be ascertained from a fair and reasonable construction of the language used in the light of all the surrounding circumstances when they executed the contract.” (Citations omitted.) Lack v. Cahill, 138 Conn. 418, 421, 85 A.2d 481 (1951); see also F & W Welding Service, Inc. v. ADL Contracting Corp., 217 Conn. 507, 517, 587 A.2d 92 (1991); Christophersen v. Blount, 216 Conn. 509, 512, 582 A.2d 460 (1990); Maloney v. PCRE, LLC, 68 Conn. App. 727, 735, 793 A.2d 1118 (2002).

Other Sections in This Document (20)

Full Text