VII Who Can Take Advantage Of Breach of Condition. Sec. 2644. Who May Take Advantage Of Breach Of Condition - Self-Executing Conditions
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.
VII Who Can Take Advantage Of Breach of Condition. Sec. 2644. Who May Take Advantage Of Breach Of Condition - Self-Executing Conditions
Whether breach of condition may be taken advantage of by one or both of the parties to the contract, depends upon the intention of the parties in inserting such condition, as inferred from the language which is used, together with the surrounding circumstances in many cases. The provision which stipulates for the condition may be so worded that the condition is self-executing, and that the breach of the condition automatically operates to terminate the contract in whole or in part, without regard to any further act of either party, and without regard to the wishes of either or both of the parties except as far as such wishes were embodied in the original contract. In cases of this sort, full effect is given to the intention of the parties and upon the happening of the event, the rights of the parties under the contract terminate in whole or in part in accordance with the provisions of the contract.1 In contracts of fire insurance, conditions are sometimes so inserted that upon the happening of the specified event, the rights of the party under the contract terminate without any further act on the part of the insurer.2 A condition in a policy of fire insurance against additional insurance, may be so worded as to operate automatically to end the policy in case of breach.3 In contracts for the payment of money, it is sometimes provided that default in the payment of an instalment or in the payment of interest or in the payment of taxes upon the security for the payment of such debt, will make the entire debt due and payable at once; and if such condition is so worded as to be self-executing and to operate automatically, such debt becomes due at once, and accordingly the Statute of Limitations begins to run at once, without regard to the actual wishes of the creditor.4 Con-ditions in a life insurance policy are usually so worded that upon breach thereof the contract terminates automatically without any further act on the part of the insurer.5
4 Lewis v. Worrell, 183 Mass. 572, 71 X. E. 73.
1 England. Reeves v. Butcher [1891], 2 Q. B. 509; Hemp v. Garland, 4 Q. B. 519.
United States. Wheeler & W. Mfg. Co v. Howard, 28 Fed. 741.
Kansas. First National Bank v. Peck, 8 Kan. 660; Snyder v. Miller, 71 Kan. 410, 114 Am. St. Rep. 489, 69 L. R. A. 250, 80 Pac. 970.
Kentucky. Ryan v. Caldwell, 106 Ky. 543. 50 S. W. 966.
Massachusetts. Elder v. Federal Ins. Co., 213 Mass. 389, 100 N. E. 655.
Minnesota. Coppoletti v. Citizens' Ins. Co., 123 Minn. 325, 143 N. W. 787
Mississippi. Central Trust Co. v. Meridian Light & Railway Co., 106 Miss. 431, 51 L. R. A. (N.S.) 151, 63 So. 575.
New Mexico. Buss v. Kemp Lumber Co., 23 X. M. 567, 170 Pac. 54.
Ohio. Ohio Farmers' lns. Co. v. Wilson, 70 O. S. 354, 71 N. E. 715.
Oregon. Hinkson v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., - Or. -, 183 Pac. 24.
Pennsylvania. Bemis v. Harbor Creek Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 200 Pa. St. 340.' 49 Atl. 769.
South Dakota. Green v. Frick, 25 S. D. 342, 120 X. W. 579.
Texas. Harrison Mach. Works v. Reigor, 64 Tex. 89; San Antonio Real
Estate Building & Loan Association v. Stewart, 04 Tex. 441, 86 Am. St. Rep. 864, 61 S. W. 386.
Wisconsin. Pierce v. Shaw, 51 Wis. 316, 8 N. W. 209; Carey v. German-American Ins. Co., 84 Wis. 80, 36 Am. St. Rep. 907, 20 L. R. A. 267, 54 N. W. 18.
2 Massachusetts. Woolford v. Phenix Ins. Co., 190 Mass. 233, 76 N. E. 722; Elder v. Federal Ins. Co., 213 Mass. 389, 100 N. E. 655.
Michigan. A. M. Todd Co. v. Farmers' Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 137 Mich. 188, 100 N. W. 442.
Minnesota. Lake Superior & Cold Storage Co. v. Concordia Fire Ins. Co., 95 Minn. 492, 104 N. W. 560; Coppo-letti v. Citizens' Ins. Co., 123 Minn. 325, 143 N. W. 787.
Ohio. Ohio Farmers' Ins. Co., v. Wilson, 70 O. S. 354, 71 N. E. 715.
Pennsylvania. Bemis v. Harbor Creek Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 200 Pa. St. 340, 49 Atl. 769.
Wisconsin. Carey v. German-American Ins. Co., 84 Wis. 80, 36 Am. St. Rep. 907, 20 L. R. A. 267, 54 N. W. 18.
3 Woolford v. Phenix Ins. Co., 190 Mass. 233, 76 N. E. 722; A. M. Todd Co. v. Farmers' Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 137 Mich. 188,100 N. W. 442; Lake Superior Produce & Cold Storage Co. v. Concordia Fire Ins. Co., 95 Minn. 492, 104 N. W. 560.
4 England. Reeves v. Butcher [18911, 2 Q. B. 509; Hemp v. Garland, 4 Q. B. 519.
United States. Wheeler & W. Mfg. Co. v. Howard, 28 Fed. 741.
Kansas. First National Bank v. Peck, 8 Kan. 660; Snyder v. Miller, 71 Kan. 410, 114 Am. St. Rep. 489, 69 L. R. A. 250, 80 Pac. 970.
Kentucky. Ryan v. Caldwell, 106 Ky. 543, 50 S. W. 966.
Mississippi. Central Trust Co. v. Meridian Light & Railway Co., 106 Miss. 431, 51 L. R. A. (N.S.) 151, 63 So. 575.
New Mexico. Buss v. Kemp Lumber Co., 23 N. M. 567, 170 Pac. 54.
South Dakota. Green v. Frick, 25 S. D. 342, 126 N. W. 579.
Texas. Harrison Mach. Works v. Reigor, 64 Tex. 89; San Antonio Real Estate Building & Loan Association v. Stewart, 94 Tex. 441, 86 Am. St. Rep. 864, 61 S. W. 386.
Wisconsin. Pierce v. Shaw, 51 Wis. 316, 8 N. W. 209.
5 Hinkson v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., - Or.-, 183 Pac. 24.
Continue to:
My Books
