King Enterprises v. Manchester Water Works, 81-233
| Citation | 122 N.H. 1011,453 A.2d 1276 |
| Decision Date | 10 December 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-233,81-233 |
| Parties | KING ENTERPRISES v. MANCHESTER WATER WORKS. |
| Court | Supreme Court of New Hampshire |
James M. Winston, Manchester, by brief and orally, for plaintiff.
Elmer T. Bourgue, Manchester City Sol. (Thomas R. Clark, Manchester, on the brief and orally), for defendant.
The plaintiff, King Enterprises, appeals from a Superior Court (DiClerico, J.) decision denying its motion to retract docket markings relating to a settlement agreement with the defendant Manchester Water Works. We affirm.
The plaintiff, an owner of real property in the City of Manchester, obtained from the city a zoning variance to construct an apartment complex in an area designated for single-family housing. The variance was conditioned upon the plaintiff working out proper arrangements with the defendant in order to insure an adequate water supply at the complex.
The plaintiff began construction of the complex. In early May 1979, the plaintiff requested that the defendant provide water to the complex, which was then in the process of being completed. The defendant responded by letter and explained that the existing system of water mains was insufficient to supply the needs of the apartment complex, and that a project was underway to upgrade the facilities. The letter requested the plaintiff to pay an assessment of $10,600 prior to the connection of the service, to make subsequent payments of $20,000, and to agree to hold the defendant harmless in the event of a fire loss due to inadequate water pressure. The plaintiff refused to accept these conditions, and negotiations between the parties broke off shortly thereafter. In early June, the plaintiff brought a bill in equity asking the court either to compel the defendant to connect the water service permanently, or in the alternative, to order a temporary connection of service pending a full hearing on the merits. The Superior Court (Souter, J.) declined to issue temporary relief.
The parties agreed to renew negotiations and on June 20, 1979, they reached a settlement with counsel present. The settlement, which did not contain a "hold harmless" clause, provided that the plaintiff would pay the city a $6,000 assessment initially, $10,000 upon the start of the first phase of the water main construction, and $10,000 upon the construction of additional water mains. As a result of the settlement, the pending action was dismissed without prejudice and docket markings were filed accordingly on July 27, 1979.
In June 1980, the city started construction of the water main and demanded payment pursuant to the settlement agreement. The plaintiff refused to make payment, and on November 4, 1980, filed a motion to retract the docket markings, claiming that the settlement was invalid because it was a product of duress resulting from the plaintiff's exigent need for water service and the defendant's wrongful withholding of such service. The Trial Court (DiClerico, J.) denied the motion to retract, and the plaintiff appealed to this court.
The plaintiff essentially argues that the trial court committed reversible error when it failed to find that the settlement was a product of duress. We disagree. Although this court has long recognized the invalidity of contracts resulting from business compulsion or duress, we have required that a plaintiff establish several factual elements to support such a claim. See Cheshire Oil Co. v. Springfield Realty Corp., 118 N.H. 232, 236-38, 385 A.2d 835, 839-40 (1978); Morrill v. Bank, 90 N.H. 358, 365, 9 A.2d 519, 525 (1939). To establish business compulsion, a plaintiff must show that he involuntarily accepted the other party's terms, that the coercive circumstances were the result of the other party's acts, that the pressure exerted by the other party was wrongful, and that under the circumstances the plaintiff had no alternative but to accept the other party's terms. Cheshire Oil Co. v. Springfield Realty Corp., 118 N.H. at 236-38, 385 A.2d at 839.
The record in this case reveals that the plaintiff failed to satisfy any of the requirements of duress. First, the record...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Machinery Hauling, Inc. v. Steel of West Virginia
...(1989); First Data Resources, Inc. v. Omaha Steaks Int'l, Inc., 209 Neb. 327, 307 N.W.2d 790 (1981); King Enterprises v. Manchester Water Works, 122 N.H. 1011, 453 A.2d 1276 (1982); Continental Bank of Pennsylvania v. Barclay Riding Academy, Inc., 93 N.J. 153, 459 A.2d 1163, cert. denied, 4......
-
Keshishian v. CMC Radiologists
...claims were barred by laches. While a contract that is the product of duress is voidable, see King Enterprises v. Manchester Water Works, 122 N.H. 1011, 1013, 453 A.2d 1276, 1277 (1982), it is well settled that a party "cannot treat [a] contract as binding and as rescinded at the same time.......
-
Keshishian v. CMC Radiologists
...claims were barred by laches. While a contract that is the product of duress is voidable, see King Enterprises v. Manchester Water Works, 122 N.H. 1011, 1013, 453 A.2d 1276, 1277 (1982), it is well settled that a party "cannot treat [a] contract as binding and as rescinded at the same time.......
-
Tessier v. Rockefeller
...a breach of contract claim. See, e.g., In re Estate of Hollett, 150 N.H. 39, 42, 834 A.2d 348 (2003); King Enterprises v. Manchester Water Works, 122 N.H. 1011, 1013, 453 A.2d 1276 (1982); Davis v. Smith, 68 N.H. 253, 254, 44 A. 384 (1894). The plaintiff's writ alleges that Attorney Rockefe......