A homeowner hires a septic cleaning company; The company bills $500, due in 60 days; The homeowner informs the company he cannot pay; The suit is filed and dismissed without prejudice as premature. Is the dismissal proper?

• A. Yes, because the vendor's claim is premature.
• B. Yes, because the homeowner's finances are in question.
• C. No, because the contract has been performed.
• D. No, because the suit should have sought specific performance.

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that a claim for payment on a contract must be for a debt that has matured. If money is owed only at a future date, filing suit before that date is premature.

In this scenario, the septic company billed $500 with payment due in 60 days. The debt has not yet matured, so the claim is not yet ripe for a lawsuit. Because the suit was dismissed without prejudice as premature, that dismissal follows the rule that you can't sue for payment until it is due. The fact that the contractor performed the work does not eliminate the obligation to pay; it just means the service was rendered, not that the debt was payable immediately. Specific performance would not address a monetary debt for services already rendered. So the dismissal is proper.