Use the provided guideline to case brief the following case: Irving v. Town of Clinton

. What is the case name AND the date of the decision? . What is the court that decided the case? . Who were the parties? . What was the cause of action and what remedy was sought? . What happened procedurally in the case? (any lower court but with focus on this court's decision) 6. What are the essential facts? 7. What is the issue (i.e., what yeso question did the court have to answer to decide this case) and what conclusion on that question did the court hold? 8. What law did the court use to answer the question of the issue? 9. What analysis did the court use to reach those conclusions? 10. Was was the dicta or dissent in this case (if any) DN B W - IRVING V. TOWN OF CLINTON Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 711 A.2d 141 1998- ) Dana, J. g Kenneth Irving, Jr. appeals from the summary judgment entered in the Superior Court (Kennebec County, Kravchuk, C.J.) in favor of the Town of Clinton on Irving's breach of contract claim. Because we conclude that an express condition precedent to the contract did not occur, we affirm the judgment. The underlying facts in this case are not in dispute. On June 19, 1996, Irving and a majority of the Town's selectmen signed a document entitled \"Snow Plowing and Road Sanding Contract\" which provided that: Irving would maintain the. Town's roads from October 1996 to May 1997 in return for $107,723.96. Paragraph 13 of the_.document states: . 13: VOTER APPROVAL: This contract is contingent upon voter approval (Article 11, Highway Dept: Account dated June 25, 1996}. The Town held its 1996 annual town meeting on June 25, 1996, at which the resi- dents voted on Article 11, which stated"in full; \"To see if the town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $236,503.00 for the Highway Department Account.\" The annual town report, which had been distributed to residents and was available at the meeting, contained a detailed breakdown of the highway department budget, including an appropriation for $107,860 for plowing. At the meeting a voter moved to amend. Article 11 to reduce the snow removal line from $107,860 to $99,999. The amendment passed and the Article was approved as amended. The Town then offered Irving the snowplowing contract at the reduced amount, which he refused, opting instead to file the breach of contract lawsuit that is the subject of this appeal. We need not address Irving's argument that the Town selectmen possess the authority to enter into contracts on behalf of the Town to carry out necessary gov- ernmental functions such as snowplowing. Even if such, authority exists the contin- gency provided for in paragraph 13 of the parties' contract was never met. The contract was made expressly contingent on the approval of the voters at the annual... town meeting. The voters did not approve the contract as written and appropriated a ` lesser amount of money for snow removal. An elementary rule of contract law is that the nonoccurrence of a condition discharges the parties from their duties under the contract. Restatement (Second) of Contracts $225 (1981). Because the Town's duty to pay Irving for his snowplowing services was discharged by the failure of the Town's voters to approve the contract as written, the court properly entered a sum- mary judgment in favor of the Town