A few days before the transfer of possession of the apartment that was sold, the building collapsed and it was not possible to enter the apartment and hand over possession as stipulated in the sale contract. However, the sale was completed and shortly thereafter, the buyer entered into an evacuation-reconstruction agreement in which she received an apartment of higher value and a monthly payment in lieu of rent
The Court held that the agreement was fulfilled as nearly as possible hence the purchaser is not entitled to expectation compensation. Insistence on the strict performance of a contract despite the material change that has occurred in it due to external circumstances constitutes a breach of the legal obligation to perform a contract in good faith. Thus, when the fulfillment of a contractual obligation strictly as worded in the contract becomes impossible or impractical for some reason, but it is possible to realize the express or implicit intention of the parties by means of a modifying the fulfillment, then the contractual obligation should be seen as shedding its original form and taking on a form adapted to the change of circumstances. Hence, despite the change in the form of fulfilment, the other party is not entitled to ignore the near fulfillment and to demand compensation as if the obligation had not been fulfilled at all. Here, a person who purchased an apartment with the expectation that within few years its value will increase due to its inclusion in an evacuation-reconstruction project, but thanks to the collapse of the building, the buyer’s goal was instantly met. Therefore, the buyer is not entitled to any compensation from the sellers.