Sec. 2107. Express Provision Making Time Of Essence
Description
This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
Sec. 2107. Express Provision Making Time Of Essence
If there is an express provision making time of the essence of the contract, full effect must be given to it.1 Effect will be given to such a provision in equity as well as in law.2 Thus a provision and express condition that in case of failure of the vendee to perform, the vendor should have the right to declare the contract void, makes time of the essence.3 So if time is not originally of the essence of the contract, but after default the promisee gives notice fixing a reasonable time for performance, and insisting upon performance within that time, time may become of the essence of the contract.4 However, if time is not originally of the essence of the contract, a notice given by one party before performance is due can not make it of the essence.5
Stribling, 18 Okla. 168, 89 Pac. 222 [affirmed on other grounds in Snyder v. Rosenbaum, 215 U. S. 261, 54 L. ed. 186]; Wiebener v. Peoples, 44 Okla. 32, Ann. Cas. 1916E, 748, 142 Pac. 1036; Mitchell v. Probst, 52 Okla. 10, 152 Pac. 597; Western Town Site Co. v. Lamro Town Site Co., 31 S. D. 47, 130 N. W. 777.
8 Puls v. Casey, 18 Okla. 142, 92 Pac. 388.
9 Snyder v. Stribling, 18 Okla. 168, 89 Pac. 222.
10 Standard Lumber Co. v. Miller & Vidor Lumber Co., 21 Okla. 617, 96 Pac. 761.
11 Sunshine Cloak & Suit Co. v Roquette, 30 N. D. 143, L. R. A. 1916E, 932, 152 N. W. 359; Standard Lumber Co. v. Miller & Vidor Lumber Co., 21 Okla. 617, 96 Pac 761; Shenners v Adams, 46 Okla. 368, 148 Pac. 1023; Mitchell v. Probst, 52 Okla. 10, 152 Pac. 597.
1 United States. Cheney v. Libby, 134 U. S. 68, 33 L. ed. 818. California. Martin v. Morgan, 87
Cal. 203, 22 Am. St. Rep. 240, 25 Pac 350; Glock v. Colony Co., 123 Cal. 1. 69 Am. St. Rep. 17, 55 Pac. 713, 43 L. R. A. 199.
Florida. Chabot v. Park Co., 34 Fla. 258, 43 Am. St. Rep. 192, 15 So. 756.
Illinois. Miller v. Rice, 133 111. 315. 24 N. E. 543.
Maine. Telegraphone Corporation v. Canadian Telegraphone Co., 103 Me. 444, 69 Atl. 767.
Oregon. Clarno v. Grayson, 30 Or. 111, 46 Pac. 426.
Pennsylvania. Axford v. Thomas, 160 Pa. St. 8, 28 Atl. 443.
Washington. Reddish v. Smith, 10 Wash. 178, 45 Am. St. Rep. 781, 38 Pac. 1003.
West Virginia. Adams v. Ouyandotte Valley Ry. Co., 64 W. Va. 181, 61 S. E. 341.
2 Telegraphone Corp. v. Canadian Telegraphone Co., 103 Me. 444, 69 Atl. 767.
3Stinson v. Dousman, 61 U. S. (20 How.) 461. 15 L. ed. 966; Martin v Morgan, 87 Cal . 203, 22 Am. St. Rep.
Continue to:
My Books
