## Facts

- The Babyland Amusement Company (plaintiffs) contracted with the Connecticut Fair Association, Inc. (defendant) to promote and manage a baby show at Charter Oak Park in Hartford on September 6–8, 1916.
- Plaintiffs agreed to supply advertising materials and 120 prizes; the defendant agreed to provide a room and pay plaintiffs $600.
- In mid-to-late August 1916 and early September 1916, an epidemic of infantile paralysis (polio) occurred in Hartford and throughout Connecticut, seriously endangering children, especially babies and young children.
- The defendant notified plaintiffs that it wished to cancel due to the epidemic and the danger of assembling children, and the defendant treated the agreement as canceled on that ground.
- Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract, alleging wrongful refusal to perform.
- The defendant pleaded, as a special defense, that holding the baby show during the epidemic would be contrary to public policy because it was highly dangerous to public health.
- Plaintiffs demurred to that portion of the answer; the trial court overruled the demurrer, and plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a severe epidemic making assemblies of babies highly dangerous can render performance of a baby-show contract contrary to public policy, excusing nonperformance.
2. Whether, when the relevant facts are undisputed (or admitted on demurrer), the public-policy validity of the contract’s performance is a question of law for the court.
3. Whether an apparently absolute promise to perform is impliedly qualified by an exception for contingencies in which performance would violate public policy by endangering public health.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors affirmed the order overruling the demurrer and found no error.
- Taking the pleaded epidemic conditions as true for purposes of the demurrer, the court held that holding the baby show under those circumstances would be contrary to public policy as a matter of law.
- Because performance would have required conduct contrary to public policy, the defendant was excused from performing its contractual undertaking.
- The court treated the cancellation as an implied qualification or exception to the defendant’s seemingly absolute promise.
- The court held that where the facts bearing on public policy are undisputed, the public-policy question is one of law for the court.

## Legal Principles

- Courts will not enforce contractual performance that, due to subsequent circumstances, would be contrary to public policy, particularly where performance would seriously endanger public health.
- Even an unconditional contractual undertaking is impliedly conditioned on performance not requiring acts contrary to public policy; a public-policy contingency operates as an implied exception.
- When the material facts are undisputed (or admitted for pleading purposes), whether an act or contract is contrary to public policy is a question of law for the court and may be decided on demurrer.

## Conclusion

The court allowed a public-policy defense based on an admitted polio epidemic, holding that a fair association was excused from staging a baby show because assembling infants during the outbreak would be contrary to public policy, and that this determination is for the court on undisputed facts.


Hanford v. Conn. Fair Ass’n, Inc., 92 Conn. 621, 103 A. 838 (Conn. 1918)