My OperaA contract with the City Council, and how the Ministry of Environment broke into it.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009 11:30:10 AM
This is the story of a Norwegian property owner who tried to negotiate her way around the Norwegian coastal act.
Some 20 years ago Hilde S wanted to build 5 cabins and fisherman's huts on her property on the coastline of Flekkerøya, a small island just outside the city of Kristiansand, Norway. Her plans were turned down by the Kristiansand City Council. She then got the splendid idea of bargaining with the City Council. She offered them some 90% of her property on the island for free, if they in return would let her build her five cabins and fisherman's huts on the remaining 10% of her coastline. According to the Norwegian coastal act you are not allowed to build a house that close to the water, but there is a possibility of dispensation, that is to make excemptions. The Kristiansand City council accepted the offer, received 90% of Hilde S's property and gave her permission to do what she wanted with the rest.
However, this case was brought in to the Norwegian Government, the Ministry of the Environment. There it was turned down, and Hilde S could not build her 5 cabins and fisherman's huts. She lost her permission.
Here we have a fundamental breach of contract. Hilde S had fulfilled her obligations according to the contract, in handing over and registering most of her property to Kristiansand City. But the Kristiansand City Council did not successfully fulfill their obligation to permit her to build, clearly a fundamental breach of contract. The Norwegian coastal law and the Ministry of the Environment in Oslo made it impossible for them to follow through. But no matter what caused the city not to deliver according to the contract, it is still a fundamental breach.
Now Hilde S' only option is to declare the contract avoided and get her property back, which she clearly has a right to do.
She cannot successfully sue Kristiansand City and claim her permission to build. The court is obviously not in a positon to force Kristiansand City to act illegally.
She cannot successfully sue the Ministry of Environment and claim her permission to build from them either. The Ministry of Environment is not a party of the contract.
So here the case ends, and for us, the people of Norway, this is probably a good thing because it means that some of our beautiful coastline is still open to public use.
Some 20 years ago Hilde S wanted to build 5 cabins and fisherman's huts on her property on the coastline of Flekkerøya, a small island just outside the city of Kristiansand, Norway. Her plans were turned down by the Kristiansand City Council. She then got the splendid idea of bargaining with the City Council. She offered them some 90% of her property on the island for free, if they in return would let her build her five cabins and fisherman's huts on the remaining 10% of her coastline. According to the Norwegian coastal act you are not allowed to build a house that close to the water, but there is a possibility of dispensation, that is to make excemptions. The Kristiansand City council accepted the offer, received 90% of Hilde S's property and gave her permission to do what she wanted with the rest.
However, this case was brought in to the Norwegian Government, the Ministry of the Environment. There it was turned down, and Hilde S could not build her 5 cabins and fisherman's huts. She lost her permission.
Here we have a fundamental breach of contract. Hilde S had fulfilled her obligations according to the contract, in handing over and registering most of her property to Kristiansand City. But the Kristiansand City Council did not successfully fulfill their obligation to permit her to build, clearly a fundamental breach of contract. The Norwegian coastal law and the Ministry of the Environment in Oslo made it impossible for them to follow through. But no matter what caused the city not to deliver according to the contract, it is still a fundamental breach.
Now Hilde S' only option is to declare the contract avoided and get her property back, which she clearly has a right to do.
She cannot successfully sue Kristiansand City and claim her permission to build. The court is obviously not in a positon to force Kristiansand City to act illegally.
She cannot successfully sue the Ministry of Environment and claim her permission to build from them either. The Ministry of Environment is not a party of the contract.
So here the case ends, and for us, the people of Norway, this is probably a good thing because it means that some of our beautiful coastline is still open to public use.
