Chase Precast Corp. v. John J. Paonessa Co.

Massachusetts hired Paonessa (defendant) to resurface highways and install concrete median barriers, and Paonessa subcontracted the barrier supply to Chase Precast Corp. (plaintiff). After residents sued to stop the removal of grass median strips, Paonessa, anticipating the state would drop the barriers from the project, told Chase to stop production; Chase complied after producing and delivering about half the order, and Paonessa paid for everything produced. The state then formally deleted the barrier item from the contracts. Chase sued Paonessa for its anticipated profit on the undelivered balance; Paonessa cross-claimed against the state for indemnification. The trial court ruled for Paonessa on impossibility grounds, and on appeal the appeals court suggested frustration of purpose was the more accurate theory; Chase further appealed.