It seems to be well settled that if one party to a contract prevents or hinders another by making performance impossible, the person victimized by that type of conduct may consider the contract breached and recover damages.

That doctrine was recently applied in a Appellate Division case involving the construction of a nursing school. In that case, the general contractor had engaged a subcontractor to grade and install walkways, curbs and parking lots. The subcontractor ultimately walked off the job. Initially, his claim was that the general contractor failed to make necessary payments. The general contractor alleged that the subcontractor failed to complete the job, and otherwise performed improperly. Later, the subcontractor contended that toward the end of the job, the grading and elevation at a location on the construction site were different then the job’s specifications. Discussions follow between the parties as to whether the condition would be subject of analysis by the various engineers involved in this project. When both the landowner and the general contractor balked at producing an engineer, the subcontractor told the general contractor that it intended to have its own engineer analyze the problem and add the cost of the analysis to the contract value. During this time, a number of vexatious e-mails were exchanged that were, in the words of the court, "closer to nasty than civil". Moreover, at a  meeting, the principals of the general contractor and subcontractor's got into a heated argument where the general contractor’s principal grabbed the arm of the subcontractor’s principal.  Evidence at trial indicated that the encounter produced a bruise on the arm of the subcontractor’s principal.

During the trial, the parties seem to have expanded upon their original contentions. Particularly, the subcontractor argue that its failure to perform was a grounded upon the duress produce from the physical encounter between the principals of the contractor and subcontractor. There, the court noted that where one party threatens or makes unreasonable demands to interfere with another party’s performance, the breach is one of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Notwithstanding the Appellate Division endorsed the trial court's decision that the encounter was not serious enough to excuse the subcontractor’s non-performance because there was no threat to inflict future bodily harm, if the subcontractor return to the site