Sec. 2598. Contract Conditioned On Future Event - In General
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. 2598. Contract Conditioned On Future Event - In General
A contract may provide in express terms that the happening or not happening of some specified event after the contract is made, shall operate as a termination of some or all of the rights thereunder. Since a condition of this sort is to take place after the contract is made, there is no doubt that it is a true condition,1 and full effect is given to it in accordance with its terms,2 subject, however, to the general rule that a condition which operates as a forfeiture is construed strictly in favor of the party against whom it is sought to exact the forfeiture.3 The termination of a contract by one party in accordance with a provision therein, is not breach.4 and does not discharge the adversary party if the termination was not by the terms of the contract to act as a discharge,5 and does not entitle the adversary party to damages.6
11 Denney v. Wheelwright, 60 Miss. 733.
12 Denney v. Wheelwright, GO Miss. 733.
1 See Sec. 2574 and 2594 et seq.
2 Florida. Mulliken v. Harrison, 53 Fla. 255, 44 So. 426.
Kansas. Burns v. Alliance Cooperative Ins. Co., 103 Kan. 803, 176 Pac. 985.
Louisiana. United Fruit Co. v. Louisiana Petroleum Co., 115 La. 191, 38 So. 958.
Maryland. Eastern Advertising Co. v. McGaw, 89 Md. 72, 42 Atl. 923
Massachusetts. Way v. Green, 196 Mass. 237, 81 N. E. 1002; Swaine v. Teutonia Fire Ins. Co., 222 Mass. 108, 109 N. E. 825.
Hew Jersey. Grunauer v. Westchester F. Ins. Co., 72 N. J. L. 289, 3 L. R. A. (N.S.) 107, 62 Atl. 418.
New York. Matter of Petition of the Argus Co., 138 N. Y. 557, 34 N. E. 388.
Ohio. Ohio Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Waters, 65 O. S. 157, 61 N. E. 711.
South Dakota. Smith v. Retail Merchants' F. Ins. Co., 29 S. D. 332. 42 L. R. A. (N.S.) 173, 137 N. W. 47.
Tennessee. American Steam Laundry Co. v. Hamburg-Bremen F. Ins. Co.t 121 Tenn 13. 21 L. R. A. (N.S.) 412, 113 S. W. 304.
Washington. Moller v. Niagara F. Ins. Co., 54 Wash. 439, 24 L. R. A. (N.S.) 807, 103 Pac. 449.
West Virginia. Bronson v. New York F. Ins. Co., 64 W. Va 494, 19 L. R. A. (N.S.) 643, 63 S. E. 283.
3 See Sec. 2054.
4 Sibley v. Life Association, 87 Ga. 738, 13 S. E. 838; Over v. Bryam Foundry Co., 37 Ind. App. 452, 117 Am. St. Rep. 327, 77 N. E. 302; Sirk v. Ela, 163 Mass. 304, 40 N. E. 183; Garlock v. Motz Tire & Rubber Co., 192 Mich. 665, 159 N. W. 344.
5 Lowell v. Washington County R. R., 90 Me. 80, 37 Atl. 869.
6 Merriman v. Machine Co., 96 Wis. 600, 71 N. W. 1050.
In like manner, a future act or event may be made a condition precedent to the taking effect of the contract or to the right of one of the parties to the contract to demand performance of the other.7
Continue to:
My Books
