Sec. 3052. Waiver Of Provisions As To Time Of Performance - General Principles
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. 3052. Waiver Of Provisions As To Time Of Performance - General Principles
If the promisor has made default in performance with respect to the time thereof, and the promisee subsequently permits him or induces him to continue performance,1 or accepts performance thereafter,2 or accepts payments made in performance,3 or accepts notes for a period exceeding the original term of credit,4 or otherwise treats such contract as still in force,5 such breach is waived. The act of one party in accepting payment in instalments waives the default of the adversary party in failing to make the payment as provided by the terms of the original contract.0 If a contract provides expressly that either party may avoid the contract in case of failure of one of the parties to perform by a specified time, the fact that neither party elects to avoid the contract amounts to a waiver of such default as to time.7
For an extreme case, see International Harvester Co. v. Thomas, - N. P. - 176 N. W. 523.
9 Kronman v. Gardella, 190 Mich. 645, 157 N. W. 377.
10 Omaha Beverage Co. v. Temp Brew Co., - la. -, 171 N. W. 704. 11 Cream City Glass Co v. Fried-lander, 84 Wis 53, 36 Am St. Rep. 895, 21 L. R. A. 135, 54 N. W. 28.
12 Whyte v. Rosenorantz, 123 Cal. C34, 69 Am. St. Rep. 90, 56 Pac. 436.
1 United States. Phillips & Colby Construction Co. v. Seymour, 01 U. S. . 646,. 23 L, ed. 341; German Savings Institute v. Machine Co., 70 Fed. 146, 17 C. C. A. 34.
Alabama. Andrews v. Tucker, 127 Ala. 602, 29 So. 34.
Illinois. McArthur Brothers v Whitney, 202 III. 527, 67 N. E. 163.
Kansas. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. Pratt, 64 Kan. 118, 67 Pac. 464.
Kentucky. Louisville & Nashville Ry. v. Mason & Hoge Co. (Ky.), 104 S. W. 975.
Louisiana. Prentiss v. Lyons, 105 La. 382, 29 So. 944.
Maryland. Orem v. Kcelty, 85 Md. 337, 36 Atl. 1030.
Nebraska. Fahey v. Updike Elevator Co., - Neb. -, 171 N. E. 50.
Oregon. Neppach v. Oregon & Cal Ry., 46 Or. 374, 80 Pate. 482.
Vermont. Bean v. Bunker, 68 Vt 72, 33 Atl. 1068.
Washington. Whiting v Dough ton, 31 Wash 327, 71 lac. 1026; Garrison v. Newton. 96 Wash 284, 4 A. L. R. 804, 165 Pac. 90.
2 Phillips & Colby Construct ion Co. v. Seymour, 91 U. S. 646, 23 L. ed 341; Jeffrey Mfg Co. v. Iron Co, 93 Fed. 40$; Northwest Auto Co. v Harmon, 250 Fed. 832; Neosho City Water Co v. Neosho, 136 Mo 498, 38 S. W. 89.
3 Northwest Auto Co. v. Harmon, 250 Fed. 832
Alabama. Davis v Robert, 89 Ala. 402, 18 Am. St Rep 126, 8 So. 114; Sewell v. Pearcy, 187 Ala 322, 65 So. 803.
Continue to:
My Books
